Moler's Musings

This week was built around a simple idea: use clear EduProtocols to help students think deeply about how power works.

We used Frayers to activate prior knowledge. CyberSandwich to frame historical tension. My Short Answer to sharpen explanations. Sketch and Tell to make ideas visible. Archetype Four Square to push evidence-based thinking. Building Thinking Classrooms to rank, justify, and disagree. EdPuzzle to anchor content before diving deeper.

The focus stayed tight. How does power get limited? How does it get tested? How does it stretch?

Monday

Beginning With the Safeguards

We started Monday with a Frayer built around one question: How did the founders ensure we had a limited government? No notes. No textbook open. Just retrieval.

Students filled the boxes with separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, protecting rights, and the Bill of Rights. The ideas were there. The language was automatic. That told me the repetition over the last few weeks worked. The Frayer was not the lesson. It was the foundation.

The Pivot to Unlimited Power

Once students had clearly named the safeguards, I shifted the question. What happens if those safeguards disappear?

Could separation of powers be ignored? Could Congress be dissolved? Could courts be weakened? Could rights be suspended? That is where we moved into Alberto Fujimori.

Students read about how he was elected president in Peru, faced opposition from Congress, and then dissolved Congress, rewrote the rules, and concentrated power in his own hands. The contrast was immediate. Everything they listed in their Frayer could be undone. A republic does not have to erode slowly. It can change quickly when one branch removes the limits.

SWBST Sketch and Tell

After reading, students used a Somebody Wanted But So Then Sketch and Tell to map the story.

Somebody was Fujimori.
He wanted to push through his ideas.
But Congress opposed him.
So he dissolved Congress and rewrote the rules.
Then power concentrated and rights were abused.

The structure forced cause and effect. Students clearly identified the turning point. Dissolving Congress was the snap.

They were not just summarizing. They were tracing how power shifted.

Archetype Four Square

We finished with an Archetype Four Square focused on Fujimori.

Most students identified him as a Ruler who drifted into Tyrant territory. He fits the Sovereign archetype because he sought control, order, and authority. However, when he removed checks, silenced opposition, and rewrote the system to consolidate power, that archetype shifted toward its unhealthy extreme.

The evidence supported it. He dissolved Congress. He weakened the judiciary. He ruled without meaningful restraint.

Students connected him to other historical figures who centralized authority and bypassed institutions. The archetype helped them see the pattern. When one person removes limits, the system tilts.

Closing the Loop

We ended by returning to the Frayer from the beginning of class.

Separation of powers.
Checks and balances.
Federalism.
Rights.

Those ideas were no longer abstract. They were safeguards against what we had just studied. Students began the day explaining how limited government works. They ended it understanding how fragile it can be.

Tuesday

Tuesday was about clarity. Not grades. Not stress. Clarity.

Instead of giving a traditional unit test, I re-ran the same 10-question assessment students took a few weeks ago at the start of the Constitution unit. No warning. No study guide. Just retrieval.

The first time we took it, the averages were low. 2.1 out of 10. 2.5. 3.0. 2.8. 2.7. On Tuesday, those same classes scored 8.1, 7.8, 7.0, 8.3, and 8.7. That shift mattered. It showed that the repetition across weeks was doing its job. Fast and Curious. Thin Slides. Frayers. Sketch and Tell. Cybersandwich. Structured retrieval built into daily routines. Students were not surprised by the format. They were not guessing. They were recalling ideas they had worked with repeatedly in different ways.

Keeping the assessment low stakes removed pressure and allowed the data to reflect understanding instead of anxiety. When students saw the new averages on the board, there was a noticeable shift in posture. They could see their own growth.

After the retrieval check, we moved into the graded assessment, but I wanted explanation instead of memorization. I uploaded a Frayer template into Snorkl and asked students to treat it like four Thin Slides in one. Each quadrant required one picture and one word or phrase connected to our guiding question: How did the founders ensure we had a government with limited power?

Separation of powers.
Checks and balances.
Federalism.
Popular sovereignty.
Bill of Rights.

The constraint was intentional. One image forces students to decide what truly represents the idea. One phrase forces precision. There is no room for vague language. The structure did the cognitive work. Students were not figuring out what to do. They were thinking about what limited government actually means.

The final step was a one-minute mini Ignite Talk recorded in Snorkl. Students had to explain how all four pieces worked together to limit power. This is where understanding becomes visible. Students cannot speak clearly about a system for a full minute if they only have surface knowledge. They have to connect ideas. They have to sequence their thinking. They have to explain cause and purpose.

Snorkl provided immediate AI feedback, which pushed students to clarify examples and tighten explanations. Many students re-recorded multiple times. Not because they were told to, but because they saw where their thinking needed refinement.

Each attempt strengthened their explanation. Each round forced them to be more specific. Each revision moved them further from listing definitions and closer to explaining design.

Wednesday

We launched our Early Republic unit with a new compelling question: How were the limits of the Constitution tested in the early days of the republic? I do not have much time and we are trying to catch up, so I decided to keep the focus tight. We are concentrating on key moments where the Constitution was pushed and tested, including Washington’s precedents, Hamilton’s Bank, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Louisiana Purchase, and the War of 1812. The goal is not to add more content, but to examine how the system held up under pressure.

CyberSandwich: Framing the Tension

We began with a CyberSandwich built around one question: What major problems did America face from colonial times through its first government, and how did they fix them? Students worked with two different readings. One focused on rule under Britain and how the Constitution addressed abuses of power. The other focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and how the Constitution strengthened a government that had been too weak.

One government concentrated too much power. The other lacked enough power to function effectively. The Constitution attempted to strike a balance between the two. Students read independently, took notes, and then compared their notes with a partner. That comparison step forced them to clarify their thinking and tighten their understanding before moving on.

My Short Answer: Strongest Explanation Wins

After comparing notes, students used My Short Answer to write a summary responding to the question. The success criteria was clear. The strongest explanation of content would win. Not the longest paragraph. Not the most dramatic wording. The clearest explanation of the problems and how the Constitution addressed them.

We ended with a Battle Royale, and this time I joined in. I told them that if my paragraph made the top ten and they voted for mine, nobody would get candy. I intentionally wrote vague responses that sounded acceptable but lacked specific explanation. The room shifted immediately. Students reread more carefully. They debated which responses truly explained the content and which ones were too general.

They did not pick mine.

That told me they understood the difference between vague writing and strong historical explanation. By the end of class, students clearly saw the tension that shaped the Constitution. Britain represented concentrated power. The Articles represented weak central authority. The Constitution attempted to balance both. That framing sets up everything that follows as we examine how the limits of the Constitution were tested in the early republic.

Thursday

Sketch and Tell: Choosing a Precedent

Thursday was all about George Washington’s precedents. If Wednesday framed the tension of the Constitution being tested, Thursday showed how the very first president helped shape those limits in action.

We began with a Sketch and Tell. Students chose one precedent to focus on: the Cabinet, using the title Mr. President, the Farewell Address, the State of the Union, or the two-term tradition.

Students had to explain what the precedent was and why it mattered. Sketching forced them to simplify the idea. Explaining it out loud forced them to clarify its purpose. This was not about copying notes. It was about understanding why Washington’s choices mattered.

Frayer: Learning From Each Other

After students focused deeply on one precedent, I had them expand their understanding. Using a Frayer, they had to learn the four other precedents from classmates.

Instead of me reteaching everything, students became the content source. They moved, shared, clarified, and filled in the gaps. By the end of this segment, every student had exposure to all five precedents, not just the one they initially chose.

The structure stayed simple. Define it. Explain it. Why does it matter? Keep it tight.

Building Thinking Classrooms: Ranking What Matters Most

Then we shifted into a Building Thinking Classrooms strategy. Students were randomly grouped and given a whiteboard. Their task was to rank the five precedents from most important to least important.

But ranking was not enough. They had to justify the top and the bottom choice.

This is where the thinking deepened. Is the two-term tradition most important because it prevents monarchy? Is the Cabinet more important because it shapes executive decision-making? Is the Farewell Address critical because it warned against political parties?

There was no obvious answer. That is the point.

Circulate, Disagree, Add

After groups created their rankings, students rotated to a new board. Their job was to find something they disagreed with and add to it. They had to explain why they would adjust the ranking or challenge the reasoning.

This part was powerful. Students were not defending their own ideas anymore. They were evaluating someone else’s thinking. It forced them to reread, reconsider, and refine their arguments.

The boards became layered with reasoning instead of just lists.

Flip the Precedent

We finished with a final push. Students chose one precedent and flipped it.

What if Washington had served for life?
What if he never created a Cabinet?
What if he refused to give a Farewell Address?
What if he demanded a royal title instead of Mr. President?

Students predicted two consequences and then decided whether the presidency would become stronger or weaker.

This question forced them to see that precedents are not small decisions. They shape the balance of power. Serving two terms instead of life sets a tone. Calling himself Mr. President instead of something grand keeps the office grounded. Creating a Cabinet structures executive power.

Flipping the decision revealed the stakes.

By the end of class, students were not just memorizing Washington’s precedents. They were analyzing how early decisions tested the limits of executive power and shaped the presidency.

Friday

EdPuzzle and Archetypes

Friday’s goal was clear. Students needed to understand how Alexander Hamilton tested the limits of the Constitution through his financial plan, specifically the creation of the national bank.

We began with an EdPuzzle video on Hamilton. I chose this particular video because it emphasized something students often miss. Hamilton was not just thinking about debt. He was thinking about the future of American manufacturing. His financial plan and support for the national bank were tied to a larger vision of economic growth and national strength.

I paired the video with an Archetype Four Square. Students had to identify Hamilton’s archetype and justify it using evidence from the video. Many identified him as a Creator or a Magician. The Creator fit because he was designing an entirely new financial system. The Magician surfaced because he saw possibilities others did not and tried to transform the country’s economic future.

The key requirement was evidence. Students could not just label him. They had to point to moments in the video that showed his vision, his ambition, and his willingness to push boundaries.

Slowing Down for the Story

When we moved deeper into Hamilton’s financial plan, I did something I rarely do. I lectured.

There are moments in middle school history where structure matters more than movement. Hamilton’s plan has too many moving pieces for students to independently untangle all at once. Tariffs. Excise taxes. The national bank. Consolidating state debts. Loose versus strict construction. Hamilton urging Congress to pass these policies. It is a lot.

I have been around long enough to know that if students do not see the full picture clearly, they will lose the thread. So I gave them the framework. I explained how the pieces connected and why each one mattered.

Cabinet Battle #1

To anchor it, I told them, “Today I’m going to give you the history and meaning behind the lyrics to Cabinet Battle #1 from Hamilton.”

That resonated immediately.

Now the debate was not abstract. It was the argument between Hamilton and Jefferson. Should the Constitution be interpreted loosely or strictly? Does the Constitution allow a national bank even if it does not explicitly say so? Does the Necessary and Proper Clause stretch that far?

Framing the lesson through the musical helped students connect to the conflict. They could see that this was not just about money. It was about how far executive and federal power could extend under the Constitution.

In this class, that is all we had time for. But it was enough.

Students left understanding that Hamilton was not simply building a bank. He was testing the boundaries of constitutional interpretation. And in doing so, he helped define how flexible the Constitution could be.

Lessons for the Week

Monday – Limited Government Rack and Stack

Tuesday – Check out Snorkl

Wednesday – CyberSandwich

Thursday – Washington’s Precedents variation rack and stack

Friday – Hamilton Rack and Stack

This week in Room 103 was about helping students see how government systems actually work. Instead of rushing from topic to topic, we focused on sequencing ideas, revisiting concepts, and using familiar routines to build understanding over time. From checks and balances to federalism, each lesson was designed to move ideas from abstract definitions to real situations students experience every day.

Monday & Tuesday

Fast and Curious: Repetition With a Purpose

We started the week with a Fast and Curious on checks and balances. This was not about introducing something new. It was about giving students another chance to work with the same ideas and language.

I set a clear expectation for the day. Each class needed to reach an 80 percent average. That goal mattered because it gave us a shared target and a way to see whether the ideas from Friday were actually sticking.

Every class met the goal. The averages came in at 82, 84, 80, 86, and 92 percent. That did not mean mastery. It meant students were ready to build.

Giving students a quick chance to recall information at the start of class helps surface what they remember and what they are still unsure about. That makes the rest of the lesson more focused.

Nacho Thin Slide: Fixing What Sounds Right but Is Wrong

Next, students worked through a Nacho Thin Slide on paper. Four triangles. One was correct. The other three included errors students had to find and fix.

Those errors were intentional. I built them directly from misconceptions I noticed during last week’s checks and balances Sketch and Tell. One example used student language almost exactly: “The president passes a law and sends it to Congress.” It sounds reasonable. It is also wrong in an important way.

This part of the lesson mattered because students were not just choosing answers. They had to explain what was wrong and how to fix it. That kind of correction helps ideas become clearer and more durable than simply being told the right answer.

Slowing students down to wrestle with mistakes turned confusion into learning.

Branches of Government Superheroes: Making Powers Visible

The remainder of Monday and all of Tuesday were dedicated to the Branches of Government Superhero project. I did not run this last year, but I am glad it is back.

When students turn a branch of government into a superhero, they have to make abstract powers concrete. A power has to show up in a scene. A limit has to show up as a weakness. Students cannot hide behind vague language.

Each superhero had to include a name, symbol, slogan, lair, a real power in action, two strengths, and one weakness. The weakness piece was critical. It forced students to think about limits, not just abilities.

As students worked, the questions they asked told me the thinking was happening. Can this symbol really represent that power? Does this slogan actually fit what my branch is allowed to do? Those questions only come when students are trying to be accurate.

Talking, explaining, and revising ideas out loud helped students test their thinking before committing it to paper.

The final piece was the origin story. Students wrote one paragraph explaining why their superhero needs to exist in our government.

They had to describe a problem that could happen if one group made, enforced, and judged laws, identify a power their branch is allowed to use, and explain a limit on that power. This writing pulled everything together.

Putting ideas into their own words helped students move beyond listing facts and into explaining purpose. It answered the question beneath the content: why the system was designed this way in the first place.

Across both days, the structure stayed consistent. Start with recall. Confront misconceptions. Apply ideas creatively. Explain purpose.

Students did not need more content. They needed time and structure to work with the same ideas in different ways. Repetition, correction, and explanation did the heavy lifting.

The creativity did not replace understanding. It revealed it.

Wednesday

Federalism as an Extension, Not a New Idea

Wednesday’s focus was federalism. Before jumping into vocabulary, I wanted students to see this as an extension of ideas they already knew, not a brand-new system to memorize.

Students understand separation of powers. They know government jobs are divided by role. Federalism asks a related question: how is power divided by level?

That framing mattered. When students can connect new ideas to something familiar, they are less likely to treat the lesson as isolated information.

Building the Foundation First

We began with a clear, linear reading that traced the problem the founders faced. The Articles of Confederation protected state independence but created a national government that was too weak. Federalism emerged as a solution under the Constitution, allowing power to be shared between state and national governments.

The vocabulary followed naturally from that explanation. Enumerated powers, reserved powers, and concurrent powers were introduced directly within the reading instead of as separate definitions. Students encountered the terms as part of the story, not as disconnected labels.

Keeping the sequence tight helped students focus on meaning instead of jumping between definitions, diagrams, and examples all at once.

Thin Slide and Sketch & Tell-O: Holding One Idea at a Time

After reading, students moved into a Thin Slide and then a Sketch & Tell-O. These structures gave students a predictable way to process information. They were not figuring out what to do. They were thinking about what federalism actually means.

Sketching slowed students down. Labeling forced them to be precise. Explaining their sketches pushed them to put ideas into their own words. Each step kept the focus on understanding the three types of power before applying them elsewhere.

This mattered because students cannot sort examples correctly if the definitions are still fuzzy.

Real-World Examples After the Definitions

Later in the lesson, students worked with real-world examples, such as driver’s license ages and minimum wage differences across states. These examples helped federalism feel real, but only because they came after the definitions were established.

Jumping to real-world cases too early can overwhelm students. Waiting until they had a stable understanding allowed the examples to reinforce learning instead of distract from it.

Students were able to explain not just what the rule was, but why different levels of government were involved.

Thick Slide: Pulling It Together

We ended with a Thick Slide where students listed key facts about federalism and identified examples of enumerated, reserved, and concurrent powers. The final task asked them to fix an incorrect statement about the Tenth Amendment.

That correction piece was especially useful. It revealed which ideas were clear and which still needed attention. Fixing a mistake requires deeper thinking than simply repeating a definition.

Why the Structure Worked

The lesson stayed focused on one goal: helping students understand how power is divided between state and national governments.

Definitions came before visuals. Examples came after understanding. Practice stayed within the same concept long enough for students to get their footing.

Federalism can feel abstract. On Wednesday, it felt manageable because students were given time, structure, and repeated chances to work with the same ideas in different ways.

Thursday

Federalism Is All Around Us

By Thursday, I wanted students to see that federalism is not something that only exists in textbooks or historical debates. It shapes their lives every day, often in ways they do not notice.

I recently joined Retro Report as a Teacher Ambassador and came across a lesson on school lunches and federalism. The lesson was labeled for grades 9–12, but the topic was too relevant to pass up. School lunches are familiar to every student. That familiarity makes them a strong way to show how federalism actually works.

I decided to take the risk and try it.

After first period, it was clear that the ideas were strong, but the lesson needed to be scaled back. Not watered down. Just clarified. I wanted to keep the main ideas intact while making the language and background more accessible for middle school students. I used ChatGPT to help rewrite portions of the lesson while preserving its core purpose.

Connecting Back to Federalism

The lesson began by revisiting federalism and asking where school lunches fit within the system of enumerated, reserved, and concurrent powers.

This mattered because it anchored the lesson to what students had learned the day before. Instead of treating lunches as a brand new topic, students used the same categories and vocabulary they already knew.

Starting here reduced confusion. Students were sorting ideas using familiar tools.

Building Shared Background

Next, students watched a Retro Report video that explained how the federal school lunch program developed and why it became controversial.

The video provided shared background knowledge. It explained when the program began, how it changed over time, and how decisions made at the national level affected states and schools.

Using a video at this point helped students build context without overwhelming them with reading.

How Federalism Shows Up in Lunches

The next section combined several readings and examples that showed how both state and federal governments shape school lunch policy.

Students examined how states responded when expanded federal lunch programs ended in 2022. They saw examples of states expanding breakfast programs, addressing food waste, reducing meal debt, and improving food quality. At the same time, they looked at how the federal government created and expanded lunch programs, especially during the pandemic, and why that role continues to be debated.

This section helped students see the system in action. The federal government sets guidelines and provides funding. States decide how those programs operate day to day. Different states made different choices based on local needs, which led to different outcomes.

Instead of memorizing laws or dates, students focused on patterns. When federal policy changes, states respond. When states act, debates follow. That back and forth is federalism at work.

Putting It All Together

The lesson ended with students making a claim about who should control school lunches. They had to choose federal policy, state policy, or a combination of both.

Students supported their claims with evidence and explained their reasoning. This required them to apply what they had learned rather than repeat information.

Lesson for the Week

Monday and Tuesday – SuperHeroes of Government

Wednesday – Federalism Rack and Stack

Thursday – Retro Report Lunch

This week marked the start of our new unit on the Principles of the Constitution. The focus was not on racing through content, but on building understanding step by step. Each lesson was intentionally designed to move from identifying ideas, to comparing them, and eventually to applying them. By the end of the week, it was clear that slowing down, naming the big ideas, and letting students wrestle with them made a real difference.

Monday

We launched our new unit on the Principles of the Constitution with two guiding questions that will anchor everything moving forward.

1. Compelling Question: How did the Founding Fathers strengthen our government and limit its power?
2. Supporting Question: What are the principles of government and why are these principles important for American democracy?

We started class the way we often do, with a Fast and Curious on the principles of the Constitution. I intentionally included the word principle itself because it is a major part of this unit. If students do not understand what a principle is, then everything that follows becomes harder to understand. It is not a government specific word, but it is foundational to the thinking we are asking students to do.

The data reflected that starting point. Class averages ranged from 48% to 57%. Not a problem. Just useful information about where students were before we dug in.

Students then moved into a Sketch and Tell O that my friend Dominic Helmstetter shared with me. As they read, sketched, and labeled, students had to identify each principle, explain what it does, and compare how these ideas work together to balance power. The sketching slowed them down and forced them to translate abstract ideas into something they could actually see and explain.

We finished class with another Fast and Curious, revisiting the same concepts and language.

This time, every class was over 80%.

Same structure. Same routine. Clear growth.

It was a strong reminder that understanding does not come from skipping over big ideas. It comes from naming them, unpacking them, and giving students multiple chances to interact with them in different ways.

Wednesday

On Wednesday, I busted out Curipod and paired it with a Frayer Model.

I used Curipod to build an interactive lesson on separation of powers with the main question driving everything: What is the separation of powers and how does dividing government into three branches limit the power of any one branch?

The Curipod lesson included a mix of questions that pushed students to think instead of just recall. Students were asked to describe separation of powers in their own words, think back to the Articles of Confederation and identify what was missing, explain a real example of how a president could limit Congress, and name powers of Congress without falling back on “making laws.” Those prompts mattered because they forced students to apply ideas, not just label them.

One feature that stood out was the AI feedback for student writing. Students received immediate feedback on whether they answered all parts of the question, used a specific example, and clearly explained how that example showed government power being limited. This was something new, and the kids genuinely seemed to enjoy it. It gave them quick direction without stopping the flow of the lesson.

As we worked through the Curipod, students used a Frayer Model to take notes on each branch of government. We filled it in together as we went, focusing on powers, responsibilities, and why those differences exist. One thing that surprised me was how many students did not know the three branches or their basic functions. This is content students are usually exposed to somewhere between third and fifth grade, but it was clear that many were missing pieces. That made slowing down even more important.

We also paired the Curipod with retrieval practice. We started class with a Blooket on branches of government and separation of powers. The starting averages were 61 percent, 57 percent, 48 percent, 58 percent, and 61 percent. After the Curipod and Frayer work, those averages jumped to 75 percent, 74 percent, 81 percent, 74 percent, and 82 percent.

That growth reinforced something I keep coming back to. Students do not need more tools. They need the right tools used with intention. Clear questions, structured thinking, and repeated chances to revisit ideas made the difference.

Thursday

Thursday was where the process really started to show itself.

I handed out a triple Venn diagram and explained the purpose clearly. When I focus on lesson planning and design, I want a process to unfold that helps us get where we are going. The Frayer Model paired with Curipod and the Blooket earlier in the week served as our DOK 1 work. That was about identifying, defining, and understanding the basics.

The triple Venn diagram was the DOK 2 move.

Students had to recall what they knew about each branch of government and then compare them. This pushed them beyond listing facts and into thinking about similarities and differences. They worked together extremely well, sharing ideas, debating where things belonged, and thoughtfully trying to come up with meaningful overlaps instead of surface level answers.

I gave students 15 minutes to complete the task, and the conversation in the room was exactly what I was hoping for.

Afterward, we went back to Fast and Curious on Blooket. This time the class averages jumped to 82 percent, 84 percent, 85 percent, 80 percent, and 92 percent. The one class that landed at 80 percent was also the class that had the least amount of time to discuss and reflect during the Venn diagram work, which felt like an important reminder. The talking and thinking mattered.

At the end of class, I handed out a project to wrap up the unit where students would turn a branch of government into a superhero. This is something I have done for years, but did not do last year.

By the end of the day, though, I knew I was going to change my mind about that plan on Friday.

Friday

The more I thought about the branches of government superhero project, the more I realized it was not time yet.

I made a teacher move Friday morning and shifted to checks and balances. There were two reasons. First, there was no realistic way students were going to finish the superhero project in class, and I had zero interest in assigning weekend homework during the Super Bowl. Second, the superhero idea makes a lot more sense once students actually understand checks and balances.

Thankfully, I already had a checks and balances lesson ready to go from last year. When I went to my blog to grab it, the link showed up as nonexistent. I am not sure who it was in the EduProtocols Facebook group, but someone had shared it, and I was able to copy it quickly. So thank you to whoever preserved and shared that lesson.

I love this checks and balances lesson because it has a clear progression.

We started with a Rock Paper Scissors tournament and I reminded students that our government was designed the same way. No branch is better or more powerful than another. Each one has strengths and weaknesses.

Next, I handed out a checks and balances chart. Students used the chart to work through a diagram where they read a scenario, identified the branch involved, and then identified how another branch could check it. This was a DOK 1 task focused on understanding and identification.

After that, students moved into an Annotate and Tell activity using real news scenarios. This time, they had to identify an executive action and then explain how the legislative and or judicial branch could check it. This pushed the thinking a step further and made the idea of checks and balances feel more real.

The final piece was a Sketch and Tell comic using Somebody, Wanted, But, So, Then. Students created their own checks and balances scenario and added visuals to match the story.

Only one class had time to finish with a Blooket, and that class ended with an 87 percent average.

By the end of the day, it was clear that pushing the superhero project back was the right call. Students needed this understanding first. The creativity can come next week.

Lessons This Week

Monday – Principles Sketch and Tell-O

Wednesday and Thursday – Curipod Separation of Powers, Frayer, Venn Diagram

Friday – Checks and Balances

This post is going to look a little different because, well… the week looked a little different. About 12 inches of snow different.

Monday and Tuesday disappeared thanks to winter weather, and Wednesday through Friday were all late starts. So instead of our usual rhythm, we had a shortened, stop-and-start week right as we were beginning our Constitution unit. Not ideal timing, but sometimes you just roll with what you get and adjust on the fly.

Wednesday

We officially kicked off the Constitution unit Wednesday. Normally, I teach Federalists and Anti-Federalists right after the Constitutional Convention, but this year I’m trying something different. We’re going to move through the principles of government first and then circle back to those debates later. We’ll see how it goes. Sometimes changing the order helps ideas click better, and sometimes it just teaches me what not to do next year. Either way, it’s worth trying.

To get us started, I used questions pulled from the U.S. citizenship test focused on principles of government. I asked ten questions out loud and told students the goal was six correct answers, just like the traditional citizenship test requirement.

I also told them that the test changed this past year. Now there are 128 questions, some are worded in confusing ways, and several feel unnecessarily political or outdated in language. One thing I noticed was the repeated use of the word “alien,” which is outdated and dehumanizing. The new version also asks twenty questions instead of ten and requires twelve correct answers to pass.

So for classroom purposes, we stuck with the old format. Ten questions, six correct to pass. Clean, simple, and it gets the conversation started without bogging things down.

Thursday and Friday

Because of late starts, I saw half my classes Thursday and the other half Friday, so both days followed the same plan.

We began by looking at how the Constitution is organized. I briefly walked students through the Articles so they could see how the document is structured. We talked about how Article I reflects the Great Compromise and why Congress takes up the largest portion of the Constitution. This overview only took about five minutes, but it helps students see the Constitution as an organized framework rather than just an old document.

After that, we jumped into Quizizz for a Mastery Peak game focused on principles of government and related vocabulary. It’s a great way to check what sticks and what doesn’t. As usual, a few terms tripped students up, so afterward we talked through memory tricks.

For example, when students struggle with federalism, I remind them that “federal” refers to the national government, and the “ism” stands for “individual states matter.” It helps the idea stick, power shared between national and state governments.

To wrap things up, students moved around the room in pairs looking at quotes and images posted on the walls. Their task was to decide which principle of government each example represented and justify their thinking to their partner. It forced them to talk through their reasoning rather than just guess.

Huge thanks to Dominic Helmstetter for sharing that activity idea with me. It’s simple, but the discussion it creates is where the real learning happens.

My Favorite Thing This Week

My favorite thing from the week came from my 6th grade class. Their textbook included a writing activity where students had to write a story featuring a factor that pushed someone to migrate. As I was looking at it, I immediately thought, this would make a great Sketch and Tell comic instead of just another paragraph.

The activity also asked students to trade stories and guess which migration factor was being described, political, environmental, economic, or social. That got me thinking this would also make a Great American Race style activity.

So instead, I had students create a comic, place a number at the top of their paper, and privately tell me which factor they used. On Monday, I’m going to copy them all, put them in order, and have students rotate through them in a Great American Race format where they read each story and try to identify the migration factor.

I’m sharing this in hopes it helps others think about how activities like this could work in both American history and world history classes. Sometimes the best tweaks are just small shifts that turn a writing task into something more creative and interactive.

One Last Thing

I’ve been posting a lot of quotes on Facebook lately. Part of the answer is simple. America’s 250th birthday is right around the corner, and it feels like a good time to revisit the voices that shaped the country in the first place.

But honestly, it goes deeper than that. We are so far removed from the founding of this country that many of the founders’ actual words have faded into the background. Most people recognize lines like “Give me liberty, or give me death,” or “All men are created equal,” or “We the People.” But beyond those familiar phrases, so much of the thinking, debate, and warning contained in their writings are forgotten.

Social studies often gets squeezed in schools, and when that happens, the ideas and discussions that helped shape the nation get reduced to quick sound bites (or nonexistent) instead of real reflection. We sometimes accept simplified versions of history instead of wrestling with the real meaning behind the country’s founding ideals.

And to make things even messier, plenty of quotes floating around online were never even said by the people they’re attributed to. So part of what I’m trying to do is share real words, from real documents, written by the people who were actually there.

So I’m going to keep posting them. I’m committed. I’m locked in.

It’s not political. It’s to get people thinking. And honestly, if a quote makes someone uncomfortable or frustrated, I think the better question is, why? These are the actual words of the founders and framers. Sometimes there’s a lot of irony in reading them today, but they’re still worth wrestling with.

At the end of the day, getting people to pause and think about where the country started and what those ideals meant is part of the job. And maybe, just maybe, it helps us think a little more carefully about where we’re headed too.

Tuesday

After a long weekend, we jumped back into our Text Quest and focused on the Three-fifths Compromise and the compromise over the Atlantic slave trade. To check what stuck from last week, we opened with a Quizizz. Class averages came in at 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, and 94%. I will take that. We are trending up and holding onto content.

Next, I handed out a short reading on compromises over slavery. It was written in a clear cause and effect structure, so I paired it with a cause and effect organizer: problem in the middle with four causes and four effects. It always surprises me how challenging this is for students because there are no multiple-choice answers or fill-in-the-blanks. Many of these students are used to circling A, B, C, or D, filling in pre-made notes, or copying from a slideshow. When the task shifts to deciding what matters, some of them freeze. The good news is that they are getting used to my style and slowly learning how to figure out what is important. My goal is not just to get them through the content. I want them thinking about history and how it relates to them.

After about ten minutes, we shifted into My Short Answer using the Quick Write feature. I gave everyone a poorly written paragraph and asked them to fix it with better information. The only criteria I set in the AI feedback tool was “clear explanation of content.” Since this was our Bonus Battle for the Text Quest, I created a scoring system based on the feedback ratings: beginner earns 1 point, intermediate earns 2 points, and advanced earns 4 points because advanced is actually hard to achieve.

The motivation was real. Students genuinely wanted to earn points for their teams, so they slowed down and wrote with purpose. The improvement from the original paragraph to the revised version was noticeable, and the teamwork energy was exactly what I hoped for. Overall, it was a strong day.

Wednesday and Thursday

Daily Debate: How Should We Choose a President?
To close out our Text Quest, I shifted into how the United States chooses a president and the compromises behind that decision. For our final daily debate, students had five minutes to work with their groups and write a claim with evidence and reasoning about how the president should be chosen. I framed it as the 1790s. There are no phones, no television, people are disconnected from each other, and news travels slowly. The three choices were direct popular vote, Congress chooses, or state legislatures choose. Five minutes went quick, but students debated, wrote, and defended their arguments. I collected their cards, read them aloud, and ranked first through fourth place finishers.

Pre-Simulation Scenario and Discussion
For our final Bonus Battle, I needed something lively. The students have been buzzing all week because a big snowstorm is on the way. I try to match student energy and adjust lessons instead of forcing something that will not land. Before the simulation, I put a scenario on the board:

Two presidential candidates run. Candidate 1 gets 66 million votes. Candidate 2 gets 63 million votes. Who wins?

Most students made faces at the question and at me. I told them it was not a trick. Almost everyone agreed Candidate 1 should win because they had more votes. That is how most games work in their world. Score more points and you win. Then I revealed that the scenario was Clinton vs Trump in 2016. Confusion followed, which was perfect. I explained that the founders essentially blended all three options from the daily debate into the Electoral College system. Citizens cast votes, states hold certain numbers of votes based on representation, and electors officially cast votes on behalf of the people.

Electoral College Simulation (I cannot share this file)
Then we ran the simulation. Students paired up with someone from another team. Each pair received dice and a sheet with twenty-six rounds. A slide told them to roll the dice. The highest roll won the round. The next slide showed two unlabeled state outlines. The highest roller chose left or right or named the state. The other state went to the lower roller. Then I revealed the electoral votes. The race to 270 was loud, competitive, and fun. When we reached California, which everyone wanted, there was a twist. The highest roller thought they secured it, but then I required a reroll to simulate a recount. Sometimes they kept it, sometimes they lost it. The reactions were priceless. After the final state, I totaled all electoral votes and averaged them by team to determine first through fourth place.

Reading and Frayer Model
I rarely assign homework because I understand how middle school homework actually plays out. This time I sent home a reading on the history of the Electoral College. I attached a Frayer model with four prompts: Define, Why was it created, How does it work, and Effects and outcomes.

Annotate and Tell with Hamilton
To close the loop, I assigned an Annotate and Tell with Hamilton’s Federalist 68 in support of the Electoral College. I included two guiding questions to anchor their thinking:
• What problem was Hamilton trying to solve with electors, and what does this tell us about his view of the people and the presidency?
• Which parts of Hamilton’s concerns no longer apply today, and which still do?

Overall, these two days mixed debate, simulation, reading, annotation, and writing. The students handled the shifts well and it was a strong finish to our Text Quest.

Friday

Friday was all about getting students up and moving again. The energy level has been high all week because everyone is watching the weather and talking about the snow, so I needed something physical and fast that still hit content. I set up a Resource Rumble by placing eight envelopes around the room and giving each group a recording sheet. Each envelope had a different task connected to what we have been learning. Students moved to an envelope, completed the task, and then brought their sheet to me for feedback. If their answer was good enough, they earned a dice roll.

The dice roll let groups collect that many Jenga blocks. The goal was simple: build the tallest tower in the room. It created a fun mix of academic checking, instant feedback, fast movement, and problem solving. Groups had to talk through their answers, agree on what to write, and then sprint back to build before another group passed them. There was zero down time and everyone was involved.

This matched the energy of the day perfectly. Students were lively but focused, and it gave them a productive outlet for all the snow day excitement. It was a great way to end the week.

Lessons for the Week

Tuesday – Three-Fifths Compromise Reading

Wednesday and Thursday – Electoral College Reading, Frayer and Annotate

“Hey, send me a picture of the homework that you finished when you get home.” That was a text I overheard this week and it hit me. Sometimes I feel the pressure in my new school to give homework. I was told it is an expectation. But I do not always give homework because I try to use our class time wisely. That quote only affirms why I do what I do. It affirms why I think homework is usually useless. Kids know how to play the game.

It is also why I barely give traditional multiple choice or short answer tests. I focus on more creative assessments that make kids think and produce something meaningful. This week wrapped up our Articles of Confederation mini unit with a Graffiti One Pager assessment. I gave them Monday and Wednesday to work on it. I genuinely believe that when students know they have time in class to work, it cuts down on the screenshot hustle and sharing answers.

Beyond that we moved into the Constitutional Convention. This week I decided to gamify it and layer in some EduProtocols to build skills without the drag.

Monday and Wednesday

Monday and Wednesday were focused work days. Students worked on their One Pager where they shared their opinion to the question: Were the Articles of Confederation a failure. The One Pager was designed as a graffiti style page that forced students to weigh both sides. On one hand the Articles created a weak national government that struggled to do basic things like tax, regulate trade, or respond to rebellion. On the other hand the Northwest Ordinance became a blueprint for how to admit new states and ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. That tension is where the learning actually lives.

The directions asked students to create a title that answered the question, include three illustrated symbols, include three key words, and include two evidence statements that supported their position. Students could use class notes, readings, stations, and discussions to build it out. A lot of kids titled theirs around the extremes which was interesting. I saw titles like Government Without Power or Quiet Success or The Imperfect Confederation. To me that is a sign the task worked because students were not parroting the same take. They were picking a lane and supporting it.

The best part was watching students think through symbols and evidence. It is easy to say the Articles failed. It is harder to sketch out something that represents weak trade or Shays Rebellion or new territory rules and then explain why it matters. When students had to put two pieces of evidence on the page they had to remember where in the mini unit that evidence came from and how it supported their claim. That is synthesis and that is what I want.

Giving two full class periods for a creative assessment also reduced the stress and the sneaky pictures. They knew they had time. They knew they had access to resources. There was no benefit in asking for a photo to copy because everyone had space to think and create.

Tuesday

Tuesday was a risk day. I decided to gamify the Constitutional Convention. I have weeks where I feel stuck and not very creative. I do not take chances like I used to. But this week I said to hell with it and took a chance. I brought out Text Quest from EMC2learning. I used to run these all the time and I forgot how much I love the structure. Text Quest comes from the Ditch the Lecture series on the EMC site. Each class period is called an episode and it has two parts. The Daily Debate and the Bonus Battle. I provide a backstory for each episode so I am telling a story while we learn.

I put students into groups of three or four and launched my Text Quest called Compromise Chaos. For our first episode we set the stage by introducing the Constitutional Convention. The Daily Debate question was tiered for easy, medium, and hard responses to help every kid enter the conversation. Students had to decide how they would have proceeded at the Convention. Keep the Articles as they are, scrap the Articles and start fresh with a new government, or make minor changes to fix the weaknesses. They wrote a claim with evidence and reasoning. I read them out loud, gave real feedback, and ranked the groups in first, second, third, and fourth place. The winning team earned an advantage for the Bonus Battle.

For the Bonus Battle I gave students a one page reading about the Convention. It covered the basics like where it happened, who showed up, when it happened, what the goal was, and why Rhode Island refused to send delegates. Students read it first and highlighted anything they felt mattered. Then we moved into a 5xGenre challenge. I had eight genres posted on the board and students had to write about the Convention in five different styles. Genres included informational summary, narrative, rhyme, point of view from Rhode Island, metaphor, headline, letter, and checklist. The advantage for the Daily Debate winners was they did not have to roll dice and could pick any five genres they wanted. Everyone else rolled for their genres.

The flow was simple. I rolled the dice. I had 8 styles/genres – informational, narrative, POV, angry tone, rhyme, haiku, persuasive. Let us say Point of View Rhode Island came up. Groups had three minutes to discuss what a Rhode Island perspective would sound like. After the timer they passed their work to a new partner in their group. I rolled again and we repeated the cycle. It was fun and it felt new. Kids were arguing about wording and laughing about Rhode Island being the stubborn holdout. Time flew by and for the first time in a while I felt like I was taking a creative swing again.

Thursday

Thursday was Episode 2 of Compromise Chaos. This episode focused on the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and how Roger Sherman glued those ideas together into the Great Compromise. The story continued right where Episode 1 left off. Delegates knew the Articles were too weak, but no one agreed on how to fix Congress. The slides helped set that scene. Large states pushed for representation by population. Small states pushed for equal votes. Everyone feared getting steamrolled.

For the Daily Debate I had groups create three Thin Slides on Padlet. One for the Virginia Plan, one for the New Jersey Plan, and one for the Great Compromise. Same rules as always. One picture, one word, and an explanation. The goal was clarity, accuracy, and creativity. I ranked the groups again and gave out first through fourth place. The winning group earned an advantage for the Bonus Battle.

For the Bonus Battle I introduced Social Studies Sudoku. It is a 6 by 6 grid with Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, Great Compromise, Large States, Small States, and Bicameral going across the top and down the side. Groups had to work together to make as many unique connections as possible. They had to know who liked which plan, who benefited, and how the final compromise blended both sides. It was a simple format, but it slowed the content down enough for kids to process how these three topics actually connect. This is the type of activity that replaces a worksheet without feeling like work. Kids were debating answers and checking logic instead of zoning out. It made for a strong finish to the episode.

Friday

Friday was supposed to be our jump into the Three Fifths Compromise, but attendance was rough. Too many kids were out and I did not want to introduce a big new concept with half the class missing. So I pivoted.

Instead of starting new content, we ran a Nacho Paragraph on the Great Compromise. I handed out a paragraph filled with eleven factual errors. Looking back I should have told them to amend the paragraph instead of just find the errors, but oh well. The point was to review the Great Compromise and make sure they understood who wanted what and how the final deal worked.

This served as our Daily Debate. Groups had to find the errors and correct them. The most found and corrected all day was ten. That made it easy to separate groups into first, second, third, and fourth place. For the Nacho Paragraph I brought out chips and salsa because why not. If we are doing nachos we might as well lean into it.

Instead of a Bonus Battle, we took a side road and ran a Quizizz that reviewed the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, Shays Rebellion, and the Northwest Ordinance. It was a nice check on what stuck from the last few weeks. The top five finishers earned five extra points for their team. Class averages landed at 75%, 85%, 80%, and 92%. It was a good way to end the week without rushing new content or punishing the kids who were out.

Lessons for the Week

Monday and Wednesday – One Pager Directions

Tuesday – 5xGenre, Text Quest

Thursday – Social Studies Sudoku,

Friday – Nacho Paragraph

This was our first week back from winter break, and I’m going to be honest. There are days where I feel exhausted and stuck in a rut. Some days it feels like I’m doing stuff just to do it, and other days it feels purposeful. Some days I feel like I’m lacking creativity. I’m just tired.

As my friend Dr. Scott Petri used to say, “Moler, your worst days of teaching and lessons are someone’s best day.” Some days I remind myself of that, just to get perspective. None of this may seem like it when you look at what I post or the lessons we do, but I’m trying. I’m being transparent about where my headspace is, even if it’s not pretty.

Another layer to this has been the feeling of being restricted by the lack of access to tools I would normally use. I can’t use EdPuzzle unless I show it to the whole class. I can’t use Class Companion for feedback. I could use Snorkl, but I always feel like watchful eyes are in the background checking what students are accessing, so I’ve been avoiding that too.

Students have to sign in through Clever, and it takes forever. When they close their Chromebooks, the whole process resets. I’m not exaggerating — it takes two to three minutes for a full login. That two to three minutes adds up to a wasted 15-30 minutes a week. It bothers me.

But other than that… we began the Articles of Confederation, Shays’ Rebellion, and the Ordinances this week.

Monday

Last year I realized something about the Articles of Confederation: before I teach them, I actually need to teach systems of government. To me, the Articles are basic — weak national government, couldn’t do much, states held the power, blah blah. But a lot of students learn those things without having any clue what a confederation even is. They don’t know what a republic is. They don’t know that we fought against a monarchy. They don’t even realize they say “and to the republic for which it stands” every morning, Monday through Friday. Despite all of that, they have no clue.

So I teach systems of government first. I keep it simple, not simpler.

We began with a Blooket on systems of government. It was not pretty. Every class was in the 50–60 percent range. I ran the classic Blooket format: one question, one attempt, timed. No power-ups. No second chances. Just raw retrieval.

Next, I passed out half-slips of paper describing four systems: republic, confederation, monarchy, and direct democracy. Students contributed to a Padlet with the characteristics, limitations, and a picture for each system. This took about ten minutes.

Then students read through each other’s Padlet posts and completed a Frayer for each system. I paused at one point to make an important connection — a confederation, a republic, and a direct democracy could all be lumped under democracies. And if they wanted to get technical, the confederation we created could be lumped under a republic. That idea alone was mind-blowing for some of them.

We finished class with another Blooket. In some sections I had them ponder a simple but important question: Why would the Founding Fathers choose a confederation as our first form of government?

Tuesday

Tuesday we built off our intro to systems of government with Gummy Bear Governments and a Build and Tell. We started class with a Blooket and the improvement was noticeable. Most classes were landing in the 75 to 85 percent range, which was a solid jump from the day before.

After that, I passed out gummy bears. Students created physical scenes showing the four systems of government from Monday: republic, direct democracy, monarchy, and confederation. The task was simple: define the system, build a scene that shows how it works, and explain it in writing. I encouraged them to look back at their Frayers from Monday for vocabulary and characteristics instead of just guessing.

The Build and Tell template helped keep everything clear. Each system had a place for a gummy bear scene picture and a written explanation. This helped students focus on showing how power works in each system rather than just making random candy structures.

To close out the lesson, I gave students a historical scenario from 1783 and asked them to think. The colonies had just gained independence from Great Britain. They had been ruled by a king who taxed them, controlled trade, and made decisions without their consent. Now the states were free, but they did not trust strong national power. Each state wanted to protect its own rights and independence. Students had to answer two questions: which government system would be best in that situation and which would be the worst. They also had to explain why.

It was a simple way to ease them into the mindset of the Articles of Confederation without actually teaching the Articles yet. Many students quickly ruled out monarchy for obvious reasons, but the interesting part was the debate between republic and confederation and whether protecting state power should be the priority right after independence.

Wednesday

Today was an introduction to the Articles of Confederation and Shays Rebellion. I wanted students to get a basic sense of what the Articles were trying to do, why they were written the way they were, and how those decisions created problems down the road.

We started with a Frayer on the Articles that asked students to define them, explain why Americans were afraid of a strong central government, list three things Congress could do, and identify four weaknesses. I like this structure because it slows students down just enough to process the why behind the design, not just memorize random facts.

From there we moved into Shays Rebellion using a cause and effect organizer paired with a simple who, what, when, where breakdown. The goal was to show how economic problems and weak central authority can snowball into something bigger, which is exactly what happened in Massachusetts.

To end the day, students combined both pieces, their Frayer information and their cause and effect notes, into a Sketch and Tell Comic they created on the computer. They had to visually show what the Articles were, highlight a weakness, show what event made people want to change them, and show at least one success. You could see understanding in how they chose images, captions, and layouts. It also forces them to synthesize instead of copy.

It was not a flashy day, but it laid the groundwork. Students left wondering why the government was set up this way and asking why they did not just make it stronger from the beginning. That sets us up nicely for the ordinances and the Constitutional Convention.

Thursday

This was a weird day because the 7th grade was on a field trip and I only had 8th grade. So I decided to extend the 8th grade lesson on the Articles of Confederation.

Three years ago my friend and co author Dr. Scott Petri gave me a supplemental Texas based social studies book titled Exploring the Grade 8 TEKS. He helped Mark Jarrett organize it and wrote many of the questions and activities. The book has phenomenal background information and wonderful primary sources and activities for kids to analyze. I have been using it more often lately to honor my friend.

I pulled the Articles of Confederation primary source from the book and had the students underline any powers left to the states and circle any powers given to the national government. Students read independently and it did not take long before they noticed they had a lot of underlines and very few circles.

Next they completed a treasure hunt where they located article numbers and explained what those articles stated. After that I asked a simple but important question: find an article that would have prevented the national government from stopping Shays Rebellion and explain why. Their answers showed that they were starting to connect structure to consequences.

We wrapped up with a Blooket full of Articles related questions. The students crushed it with class averages between 85 percent and 95 percent. It was great to see strong retrieval after a heavy primary source day.

Friday

Today we learned about the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. We began class with a short Blooket containing eight questions related to the ordinances and Northwest Territory. I included one Articles of Confederation question to keep those ideas in the mix. We used the classic Blooket game mode with one question, one attempt, and a timer. The class averages were 52 percent, 50 percent, 43 percent, 59 percent, and 55 percent. Not great, but it helped me see what they did not know before teaching anything.

We paused briefly to talk about the word ordinance. I pointed out that both order and ordinance begin with ord, which helped give context for how land was being organized.

Then we began a Number Mania activity using this prompt: Refute this statement with four numbers, “The Articles of Confederation were too weak to get anything done.” Students had to include four numbers with paraphrased facts, use Emoji Kitchen for pictures, add a title, and be creative.

Surprisingly, many students did not know the word refute. I have seen that word many times on high stakes tests, so it was worth slowing down and teaching it. The activity itself was interesting because it forced students to look for successes under the Articles, which is a nice counterbalance to the constant focus on weaknesses.

After the Number Mania, students completed a Thin Slide Faceoff comparing the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and finding a similarity. One picture, one word, one explanation. Then partners combined their individual slides into one Thin Slide that showed similarities and differences.

We closed out with the same Blooket from the beginning of class. This time the averages were 83 percent, 75 percent, 80 percent, 89 percent, and 95 percent. A successful day and a huge improvement from the start of class.

Lessons for the Week

Monday – Frayer

Tuesday – Gummy Bear Government

Wednesday – Articles Rack and Stack

Thursday – Not Available

Friday – Ordinances Rack and Stack

This week was a weird one heading into winter break.

Monday started as a two-hour delay, but the cold did not play nicely with the salt. Roads iced over, conditions got worse, and the day was eventually called off. Over the weekend, I had a freak accident and hit my head, which led to concussion symptoms. Headache and dizziness lingered into Monday and Tuesday, so I missed school on Tuesday.

Then Thursday morning hit. I woke up at 2 a.m. with an awful pinched nerve in my shoulder. Sometimes the pain is manageable. Sometimes it creeps up to a seven or eight. This one was a solid seven or eight. I tried to push through and go in anyway, but I could not make it. I left early and went to urgent care, and I am glad I did. The pain is gone.

Because of all that, this was not a week to start anything new. Instead, I kept it simple. We focused on one core question: why the British lost the Revolutionary War. We did not get into individual battles, specific people, or detailed comparisons between the two sides. This week was about framing the story and building understanding before the details.

Tuesday

Tuesday was about finishing strong.

Students wrapped up their Netflix-style assessment for the Declaring Independence unit. I had very clear instructions typed up, and everything centered on one guiding question: what convinced the colonists that independence was worth the risk?

Each “episode” had a purpose.

Episode one focused on Lexington. Not just as a battle, but as British soldiers acting as police, enforcing laws, and ultimately killing colonists. We framed this as a civil conflict where natural rights were being violated. That moment mattered because it shifted the relationship. This was no longer about protests or complaints. Something had broken.

Episode two moved into ideas. John Locke and Thomas Paine. Natural rights and the social contract. But just as important was Paine’s ability to communicate those ideas in a way regular people could understand. Independence was radical. Paine made it relatable. He helped people see themselves in the argument and believe it was possible.

The final episode centered on the Declaration of Independence. The point of no return. Once that document was signed, there was no walking it back. The risk was real, but so was the commitment.

Looking back, it almost follows a hero’s journey without actually being one. A problem emerges. Beliefs are challenged. A decision is made that changes everything. Not because it fits a template, but because that is often how history actually unfolds.

Wednesday and Thursday

Wednesday and Thursday were about keeping things simple and intentional.

I did not have the time or the capacity this week to dive into Revolutionary War battles or a long list of people. I also did not want to be staring at screens because of the concussion. So instead of forcing something new or flashy, we slowed things down and went analog.

We did a paper-based stations activity built around one question: Why did the British lose the Revolutionary War? Students rotated through eight stations with an organizer, pulling evidence and ideas from a mix of primary and secondary sources. They read letters, watched a short video, and analyzed different explanations without me front-loading anything.

Before we started, I told them why I designed the lesson this way. Three years ago, a student asked me, “Mr. Moler, did we win the Revolutionary War?” That question stuck with me. It was a reminder that what feels obvious to us as adults or teachers is not always obvious to students. I wanted to make sure I covered my bases and made it clear that yes, the colonies did win.

I also explained that I could have framed the lesson as why the Americans won. Instead, I intentionally framed it as why the British lost. The most powerful military in the world lost to a group that, on paper, looked untrained, unorganized, and outmatched. That framing creates curiosity. It forces students to think deeper about strategy, geography, leadership, motivation, and mistakes rather than just memorizing victories.

Students used the stations to build their own explanation and then wrote a clear response answering the question. No slides. No devices. Just thinking, reading, and writing.

That lesson carried into Thursday.

For early finishers, I pulled out a John Meehan lesson that works like a choose-your-own-adventure through the life of a soldier. Students learned about training, pay, food, daily conditions, and how soldiers actually fought. I paired it with a Sketch and Tell-O, where students drew one idea and shared one thing they learned.

It was low-tech, calm, and exactly what this week needed.

Friday

Friday was controlled chaos in the best possible way.

We did an ugly Christmas sweater party, but not the store-bought kind. We made them history-style. Students could choose any topic we covered during the first part of the school year and turn it into an ugly sweater design. Ideas were everywhere. Colonization, natural rights, mercantilism, battles, documents. Markers, paper, and laughter took over the room.

At some point in the middle of all this, a group of students started trying to draw me. Then they tried to draw me as George Washington. That is when I said the most 2025 sentence I have probably said all year: “ChatGPT can do that.”

I took my face, took George Washington’s face, and had ChatGPT merge them together. Then I turned it into a coloring page. It was ridiculous. It was hilarious. And the kids lost it.

More than anything, it felt like the perfect way to end the first half of the school year. Creative. Low pressure. Connected to content. A reminder that learning does not always need to be heavy to be meaningful. Sometimes it just needs to be human.

Heading into winter break, that felt right.

Lessons for the Week

Tuesday – Netflix Template, Netflix Directions

Wednesday – Rev. War Stations, Rev War Organizer

Thursday – Life of a Soldier, Sketch and Tell-o

Friday – Ugly Sweater Template