Profile Sheet

Teacher: Mr. Dale W. Wright

Primary Subject Area: Social Studies

Outside Subject Area: Language Arts

Class: Civics and Government

Class Level: Regular

Grade: 12th Grade

Class Time: Eight 50-minute periods over a three week period

PBL Title: House of Representatives propose budget agreements to avoid “sequester cuts”

Description of Student Roles and Problem Situation:

Students will act as Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, from the House of Representatives to develop an agreement (revenues and spending cuts) to avoid the draconian sequester cuts on 1 March 2013. The two groups will develop plausible positions from both sides of the aisle in order to compromise on one solution that balances revenues and cuts and the interests of individuals with the public good. The House of Representatives (each student) will submit a single solution (group presentation and individual final report) to the Office of the President of the United States (principal and his staff). The POTUS will sign the proposal into law ultimately avoiding sequestration.

Adaptations for a student from a non-Western culture:

Utilizing differentiated instruction, I will determine the learner’s prior knowledge of the topic of sequestration via direct questioning. Information solicited will include knowledge of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of the US Government, the US Constitution, federal debt, discretionary and non-discretionary funding, national security policies, healthcare, and revenues. When monitoring group activities, I will make an extra effort to observe if the non-Western student is engaged by offering opinions/suggestions during the group collaboration. If the student is not participating due to a lack of understanding of any of the topics listed above, again, using differentiated instruction, we will review the topics to ensure better understanding. Additionally, I will guide the student accordingly by offering potential details to offer the group.

Adaptations for an ESOL student:

For ESOL learners, I would orally preview the lesson in the student’s first language. Additionally, I would provide a graphic organizer highlighting a preview of the lesson in the native language using the translate function of MS Word. Lastly, I would provide an opportunity to review after each lesson component. In the event that the ESOL learners need more attention, I would recommend differentiated instruction before and/or after school. (Note: Assumes the teacher, aide, or student helper is bilingual)

Title, Learner Characteristics,

Next Generation Sunshine State Standards

Teacher: Mr. Dale W. Wright

Primary Subject Area: Social Studies

Outside Subject Area: Language Arts

Class: Civics and Government

Class Level: Regular

Grade: 12th Grade

PBL Title: House of Representatives propose budget agreements to avoid “sequester cuts”

NGSSS in Social Studies:

SS.912.C.2.4: Evaluate, take, and defend positions on issues that cause the government to balance the interests of individuals with the public good.

SS.912.C.2.11: Analyze public policy solutions or courses of action to resolve a local, state, or federal issue.

NGSSS in Language Arts:

LA.1112.4.3.1: The student will write essays that state a position or claim, present detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support effective arguments and emotional appeals, and acknowledge and refute opposing arguments.

Learner Characteristic #1, Physical: Most students reach physical maturity, and virtually all attain puberty.

Justification for #1: Although most students have reached physical maturity, tremendous variation in height, weight, and rate of maturation exists. Given that the class will be divided into two groups (Republicans and Democrats) for this PBL, recognition of this variation when

dividing the class is important in order to attain a proper balance between the groups, especially concerning maturation.

Learner Characteristic #2, Social: Girls seem to experience greater anxiety about friendships than boys do.

Justification for #2: When assigning students to the two groups, recognizing that females appear to experience increased anxiety relative to boys at this age will play a significant factor. Although separating members of “cliques” to maximize student focus to complete the task is a positive procedure, separating females that maintain a strong relationship may result in negative unintended consequences. Thus, allowing close friends to work in pairs within the respective group is desirable.

Learner Characteristic #3, Cognitive: High school students become increasingly capable of engaging in formal thought, but they may not use this capability.

Justification for #3: This PBL provides an excellent opportunity to encourage students to engage in formal thought, especially for students who regularly avoid this activity. By outlining the processes to develop valid courses of action, an educator helps the students develop formal operational thought. The students will have an opportunity to identify plausible courses of action via the formal thought process.

Learner Characteristic #4, Emotional: The most common type of emotional disorder during adolescence is depression.

Justification for #4: Because this particular PBL is a real-life situation that can potentially affect family incomes and/or careers, such as defense contractors, closely monitoring the students during this activity will be critical to include implementing “Wingman” principles. Students will select a partner in order to closely monitor each other’s emotional state. The Wingman will report any signs of depression due to the assignment. Students will be instructed to always report significant depression regardless of the situation.

Learner Characteristic #5, Cognitive: Between the ages of twelve and sixteen, political thinking becomes more abstract, liberal, and knowledgeable.

Justification for #5: As students shift from concrete to formal operational thought, political thinking becomes more abstract, liberal, and knowledgeable. Thus, this particular PBL should spark the interest of the majority of the students in the class.

Learning Outcomes, Student Roles and Problem Situation,

Meet the Problem Method

Learning Outcomes:

NGSSS in Social Studies:

SS.912.C.2.4: Evaluate, take, and defend positions on issues that cause the government to balance the interests of individuals with the public good.

LO #1: Given the national issue of sequester cuts due 1 March 2013, the students divided into two groups, Democrats and Republicans, will evaluate and will take three (3) plausible positions per group and will defend one (1) position per group to balance the interests of individuals with the public good per the rubric with 80% accuracy.

SS.912.C.2.11: Analyze public policy solutions or courses of action to resolve a local, state, or federal issue.

LO #2: Given the other side’s proposed position to avoid sequester cuts, the students again divided into two groups, Democrats and Republicans, will analyze the other side’s position in order to develop an overarching solution to avoid the draconian cuts on 1 March 2013 per the rubric with 80% accuracy.

NGSSS in Language Arts:

LA.1112.4.3.1: The student will write essays that state a position or claim, present detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support effective arguments and emotional appeals, and acknowledge and refute opposing arguments.

LO #3: Given the national issue of sequester cuts due 1 March 2013 and proposed solutions from the groups, the students individually will develop a plausible agreement, will present detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support the proposed solution and emotional appeals, and will acknowledge and refute opposing arguments in a final report per the rubric with 80% accuracy.

Description of Student Roles and Problem Situation:

Students will act as Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, from the House of Representatives to develop an agreement (revenues and spending cuts) to avoid the draconian sequester cuts on 1 March 2013. The two groups will develop plausible positions from both sides of the aisle in order to compromise on one solution that balances revenues and cuts and the interests of individuals with the public good. The House of Representatives (each student) will

submit a single solution (individual final report) to the Office of the President of the United States (instructor). The POTUS will sign the proposal into law ultimately avoiding sequestration. Note: if the audience must be real then the best submission(s) could be forwarded to his/her Representative.

Meet the Problem Documents:

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, will send our students a memo to develop legislation to avoid the draconian sequester cuts (see attached) as well as two documents related to sequestration. One is an excerpt from OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-155) and the other is an article from www.politico.com.

MEMORANDUM

To: House of Representatives

From: The Office of the President of the United States

Re: Sequestration

Date: 1 March 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,

We’ve kicked the proverbial can down the road long enough by extending the deadline of sequester cuts from 31 December 2012 to 1 March 2013. The time to address this national issue is now in order to avoid grave consequences to our great nation. Sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding (domestic programs) and cuts to Medicare of

2.0 percent, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs. In order to avoid these extensive and mandatory cuts in expending, simply stated, you need to compromise on a budget agreement by 1 March 2013.

Excerpt from OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-155)

Introduction The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (STA) (P.L. 112-155) requires the President to

submit to Congress a report on the potential sequestration triggered by the failure of the Joint Select Committee of Deficit Reduction to propose, and Congress to enact a plan to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). In response, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is issuing this report based on assumptions required by the STA. The report provides Congress with a breakdown of exempt and non-exempt budget accounts, an estimate of the funding reductions that would be required across non-exempt accounts, an explanation of the calculations in the report, and additional information on the potential implementation of the sequestration.

In August 2011, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate voted for the threat of sequestration as a mechanism to force Congress to act on further deficit reduction. The specter of harmful across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs was intended to drive both sides to compromise. The sequestration itself was never intended to be implemented. The Administration strongly believes that sequestration is bad policy, and that Congress can and should take action to avoid it by passing a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction package.

As the Administration has made clear, no amount of planning can mitigate the effect of these cuts. Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument. It is not the responsible way for our Nation to achieve deficit reduction. The President has already presented two proposals for balanced and comprehensive deficit reduction. It is time for Congress to act. Members of Congress should work together to produce a balanced plan that achieves at least the level of deficit reduction agreed to in the BCA that the President can sign to avoid sequestration. The Administration stands ready to work with Congress to get the job done.

“Sequestration: Where will the cuts hit?”

When it comes to sequestration, President Barack Obama and most lawmakers would prefer to just not go there.

That’s especially true in talking about how the administration would go about implementing the first installment of about $100 billion in across-the-board spending cuts set to go into effect Jan. 2 absent a last-minute deal with Congress to avert them.

Searching anxiously for answers are defense contractors, teachers, health care workers and, for that matter, all Americans who rely on government services like meat inspectors, airport baggage screeners and national park rangers.

But as they wait for the White House and House Speaker John Boehner’s office to show sign of progress, some of the most basic questions linger about what happens to government operations if talks break down. And budget experts say there’s good reason for the information vacuum.

“This is virgin territory,” said Jim Dyer, a Republican who was House Appropriations Committee staff director. “We’ve not been here before.”

In the spirit of at least talking about uncomfortable things, here’s a look at five key questions surrounding sequestration:

Who’s in charge?

Introducing Jeffrey Zients.

He’s a multimillionaire former CEO with a pedigree in making government more efficient. For the purposes of the fiscal cliff, he’s also the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, meaning he’ll be the one making many key decisions and writing critical guidance memos explaining what the government agencies should do if sequestration starts.

While White House aides have insisted for months that they weren’t planning for this scenario, Zients has been told to get started — just in case. That’s meant sending warnings to budget officers and legal counsel across the government ordering them to start crunching their own numbers ahead of the fiscal cliff deadline.

One of Zients’s toughest calls will involve how much wiggle room to give agencies when they apply the across-the-board cuts to their programs, projects and activities.

Most agencies will want considerable discretion to decide what’s best for them within each of those broadly defined categories. But it’s far from clear that OMB will let them have it.

How specific will OMB and the agencies be?

Zients is likely to issue a report as early as Jan. 3 — the day after sequestration would take effect — explaining a good bit about implementation of the spending cuts.

What’s clear now is that the Budget Control Act, which passed last year, prompting this entire process, included specific percentages for agencies to cut over the next decade in order to reach total savings of $1.2 trillion: a 9.4 percent reduction for most parts of the Pentagon and 8.2 percent drop for most discretionary nondefense agencies.

There are also some exemptions, including for military personnel and the Defense Department, which has the freedom to shuffle money around for war and military readiness. But the cuts are sure to hurt, especially now because the first installment needs to be squeezed into the final nine months of the current fiscal year.

Scott Lilly, a Democrat who was House Appropriations Committee staff director, estimates that government agencies would end up seeing their spending levels slashed closer to 12 percent to 15 percent in the first year because of that tight timeframe.

Zients and other budget officials also will need to decipher which programs, projects and activities are separate accounts subject to their own spending cuts.

Under a 1985 budget law guiding the process, a program, project or activity subject to sequestration must be counted on its own if it gets a separate mention in the report language accompanying an appropriations bill from the previous fiscal year.

If only it were that easy. The fiscal 2012 spending cycle ended with an omnibus package and a House-Senate conference report. But some of the individual House and Senate spending bills didn’t move on their own or include report language, opening the door to legal questions about which documents to rely on when implementing sequestration, Lilly said.

Should Zients give departments some degree of discretion, they could move their money around in ways to maintain some of their normal functions. For example at the Pentagon, budget officers might opt to cut back on fuel purchases and use up what’s in storage without spending less to buy and maintain a reserve of spare parts.

One thing agencies can count on is they won’t get orders from the president to shift funds to other departments. That’s something House Republicans have agitated for when it comes to sparing the Pentagon at the expense of other agencies.

“There’s some flexibility, but there’s not flexibility to move across that wall of defense and nondefense,” said John Podesta, who was White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. “That’d have to happen from Congress, and I don’t see them doing that.”

Layoffs or furloughs?

Thanks to union rules and murky law, this will be one of OMB’s toughest decisions. It already makes budget experts squirm.

“I just don’t think this is a scenario worth talking about frankly,” Alice Rivlin, who was budget director under Clinton, replied when asked which route she thought OMB would go.

Lilly, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, said government agencies might need to begin layoffs if they demand 20 days of furloughs, though he said there’s some

question as to whether that threshold is triggered after 20 consecutive days or just that many days of a fiscal year.

“There’s going to have to be a decision by government legal staff as to how they are going to interpret that,” Lilly said.

Agencies facing long-term budget problems without the threat of sequestration could find that the impasse provides an opportunity to make some layoffs if it means saving themselves from a future expense.

“Everyone is going to do everything possible to make sure this gets done through furloughs,” Lilly said. “But it’s not clear how much latitude there is to do this there.”

Several experts said the Obama administration would be smart if it released a memo on this issue for the entire government rather than letting each agency make their own potentially conflicting decisions.

Can Congress undo sequestration?

The president and congressional leaders could cancel sequestration before it even happens. But that would take considerable movement in the negotiations since both sides remain at odds over how to find spending cuts in other ways, let alone how to count each other’s ideas.

White House aides say Obama’s latest offer this week calls for the cancellation of sequestration while imposing $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, including $400 billion from health care entitlements, $200 billion from other mandatory spending programs, $100 billion from defense and $100 billion from other discretionary programs.

Boehner’s counterproposal includes $1 trillion in mandatory spending cuts plus billions more in cuts to other programs. The Republican has also advanced legislation that gets rid of sequestration for the Pentagon and shifts some of the cuts onto discretionary programs.

Congress could also wade in after the Jan. 2 deadline and move targeted legislation specifying where the cuts should fall. It could even try to override Obama administration implementation decisions.

Both House Democrats and Republicans said in interviews this month they’d like to have a say in the spending cuts if they don’t like the way things go.

“Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution talks about our controlling the dollars and the purse strings,” said former Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.). “That continues to be important.”

“There’s adjustments to be made to mitigate the immediate damage to the economy, and I trust they would be made. We’d have to,” said Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), ranking member of the

Appropriations Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee. “I hope it won’t be initially triggered, but I don’t think if it’s triggered that that’s the end of our options.”

But former Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) said Obama and his budget chief will get the final say.

“Whatever the administration wants, they probably get,” he said.

What are the legal consequences?

If there’s any sure thing about sequestration, it’s this: Lawyers are positioned to make big bucks.

Government employees facing layoffs are likely to challenge their termination in court. And they’d probably get the government to pay their legal fees if they win.

Government contractors also are looking at their court options if their own deals are broken. At the very least, they could change future contracts with the government and “build it into the price structure that the government is less reliable as a customer,” Lilly said.

Even OMB’s decision on how much discretion to give different agencies opens the door to court cases. “There are people who will like to litigate, claim they had too much discretion or didn’t use enough,” Fazio said. “So it’ll be a tough call.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/sequestration-where-will-the-cuts-hit-85385_Page3.html#ixzz2ILS9mV6D

Problem Statement, Know/Need to Know Boards,

and Possible Resources

Problem Statement:

How can we, as members of the House of Representatives both Democrats and Republicans, develop and present a budget agreement to prevent sequestration in such that:

We meet the deadline of 1 March 2013 We reduce the overall national debt We do not compromise the security of the United States We do not significantly affect the solvency of programs such as Medicare and IDEA

Know Board:

We must propose a budget agreement (legislation for $1.2 trillion in spending cuts) to the POTUS (sign into law) to avoid triggering sequestration 1 March 2013.

Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument. It is not the responsible way for our Nation to achieve deficit reduction.

Sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding (domestic programs) and cuts to Medicare of 2.0 percent, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.

There are also some exemptions, including for military personnel and the Defense Department, which has the freedom to shuffle money around for war and military readiness.

The sequestration itself was never intended to be implemented. The Administration strongly believes that sequestration is bad policy.

Jeffrey Zients, the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, is responsible for key decisions and writing critical guidance memos explaining what the government agencies should do if sequestration starts.

The POTUS will not provide guidance to shift funds to other departments. Government agencies will examine the possibility layoffs if unions demand 20 days of

furloughs affecting national security. Government employees facing layoffs are likely to challenge their termination in court.

Government contractors also are looking at their court options if their own deals are broken. 

The president and congressional leaders could cancel sequestration before it even happens. Members of Congress should work together to produce a balanced plan that achieves at least the level of deficit reduction agreed to in the BCA that the President can sign to avoid sequestration.

Need to Know Board:

What is the potential impact of automatic spending reduction procedures on health reform spending?

What is the potential impact of automatic spending reduction procedures on national security?

What potential impact will sequestration have on National Institutes of Health? What potential impact will sequestration have on Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention? Will sequestration cuts be at the program level or at the budget account level? What impact will sequestration have on federal education programs and specifically, for

funds provided to states and local school districts to support special education services? What could be the result at the school and school district level if Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) federal funds are reduced by such a significant amount?

Who makes the estimates that determine the size of the required cut? Is funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (i.e. Afghanistan ops) exempt from a

sequester? How does the sequester in 2013 differ from the sequester in following years? What is the current nation debt? Does the US Constitution provide any guidance?

Resources:

Websites:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118907

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2012/09/23-sequestration-defense-singer

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3635

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5872/text

Books:

Lynch, Christopher G and McHale, Cory (2012). Budget Control Act of 2011: Elements and Options (Economic Issues, Problems and Perspectives). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publisher, Inc.

Radmacher, Eric M. and Sabins, Alaina (2013). Budget Control and Sequestration: Considerations and Potential Impacts (Laws and Legislation). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publisher, Inc.

112th United States Congress (2013). The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012: Fiscal Cliff Act. New York City: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Human Resources:

Rep. Steve Southerland, II, US Representative for Florida’s 2nd District. Phone: (850) 785-0812; 840 W. 11th Street, Suite 2250, Panama City, FL 32401

Capstone Performance

The capstone performance for the problem contains two parts, a group presentation and an individual final report. The principal and his staff representing the POTUS and White House staff will assess each student individually via a presentation rubric. The classroom instructor will assess each student individually via a report rubric.

The classroom instructor will divide the class of 16 students into two groups, Democrats and Republicans, representing members of the House of Representatives. Prior to collaborating within the Party, each student will draft a proposed budget agreement considering timeframe, national debt, national security, and programs such as Medicare and IDEA to the instructor over a one week period as a homework assignment. Once reviewed and approved, each student within their Party, will collaborate and propose two feasible solutions providing at least four justifications for why the Representative is recommending one over the other over two class periods. Within each Party (group of eight), Representatives will analyze each others’ draft proposal and either select one of the solutions as the overall best or develop an “optimized” solution using elements of the several proposed budgets over one class period.

Then, each Party will provide the other Party with their proposed budget in order to analyze the details prior to a debate to compromise on one budget agreement for Presidential approval over two classroom periods. After careful review, the Representatives from each Party will debate and compromise on one integrated budget agreement using detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support the proposed solution over two class periods. Upon reaching a compromised solution, the members will present the budget agreement to the POTUS and White House staff. Students will have two class periods to generate the briefing and a homework assignment to prepare to brief, as required.

The principal and his staff will represent the POTUS and White House staff. The POTUS and his staff will be prepared to ask each member a budget-related question to ensure complete understanding of the proposed measures to avoid sequestration. The room will be arranged such that the POTUS and his staff sit at a table facing the front of the classroom to have a clear view of the Smart Board during the presentation, as shown on the room arrangement page. The Representative workstations are placed in a semi-circle around the POTUS and his staff. The Democrats are sitting to the POTUS’s left and Republicans are sitting to his right. The Representatives will stand at the Smart Board when briefing.

In the oral presentation, two students, one representing the Majority Leader and one representing the Minority Leader, will present the proposed budget agreement. Eight Representatives, four from each Party, will present one justification for proposing this particular budget agreement. Two Representatives, one from each Party, will discuss the process of selecting a solution within the Party discussions, and two Representatives, one from each Party, will discuss the process of selecting a solution between the Party discussions. Two

Representatives, one from each Party, will discuss lessons learned during the debate between the two Parties. A total of 16 Representatives will brief over a 90-minute period.

A week after the conclusion of the group presentation, each Representative is required to submit a 5-8 page final report of his proposed budget agreement. This final report will be a “polished” version of the initial draft budget proposal incorporating details from the debates. Additionally, in the final report students will be required to add a section of lessons learned/reflection items of the entire process to exercise meta-cognition.

Student autonomy is incorporated during the group presentation as each individual student can decide which requirement to present and can plan his/her own part accordingly. Likewise, student autonomy is incorporated in the final report as each individual student can decide which plausible solution to propose to resolve the problem statement and refute opposing arguments.

Room Arrangement Page

RepresentativesSmart Board

POTUS and White House Staff

Instructor Desk

Democrats

Rep Work Stations

Republicans

Rubric for Assessing the Capstone Performance

Report Rubric

Criteria Superior Adequate PoorContent Accuracy

30 pointsAll supporting research is pertinent (detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support the proposed solution and emotional appeals) and accurate (i.e. peer reviewed articles & books vs. Wikipedia) 90 – 100% of the time

20 pointsSupporting research is pertinent (detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support the proposed solution and emotional appeals) and accurate (i.e. peer reviewed articles & books vs. Wikipedia) 80 - 89% of the time

10 pointsSupporting research is less than 80% pertinent (detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support the proposed solution and emotional appeals) and accurate (i.e. peer reviewed articles & books vs. Wikipedia)

Alignment to Problem

Statement

20 pointsProposed solution must align with all conditions stated in the problem statement

15 pointsProposed solution aligns with three of four conditions

5 pointsProposed solution aligns with two or less conditions

Required Components

50 pointsReport must contain

a) The group’s problem statement

a) A feasible, balanced (cuts vs. spending) budgetary plan that reduces the overall national debt

b) The plan reduces national security by reducing combat readiness by no more than 20% (manpower &

40 pointsThe report contains

a) The group’s problem statement

b) A feasible but not balanced (cuts vs. spending) budgetary plan that reduces the overall national debt

c) The plan reduces national security by reducing combat readiness by more than 20% but no more than 30%

10 pointsThe report contains less information than listed in the “Adequate” category

weapon systems)

c) The plan reduces the solvency of programs such as Medicare and IDEA by no more than 20%

d) Four justifications are provided why this solution was proposed

e) Students will analyze, acknowledge, and refute at least 2 opposing arguments

f) Lessons learned are included (8-10 sentences)

(manpower & weapon systems)

d) The plan reduces the solvency of programs such as Medicare and IDEA by more than 20% but no more than 30%

e) Three justifications are provided why this solution was proposed

f) Students will analyze, acknowledge, and refute at least 1 opposing argument

g) Lessons learned are included (5-7 sentences)

Mechanics 10 pointsReport contains no grammatical errors (spelling, capitalization, punctuation, subject/verb agreement)

7 pointsReport contains 2-3 grammatical errors.

3 pointsReport contains more than 3 grammatical errors.

Scoring Guide

A 98-110

B 82-97

C 70-82

D 60-69

F Less than 60

Oral Presentation Rubric

Criteria Superior Adequate PoorDelivery 20 points

Maintains eye contact with audience 90% or more of the time; fluctuations in volume and inflection are intended and add to clarity of presentation; no non-purposeful movement; student projects to the back of room 90% or more of the time

12 pointsMaintains eye contact with audience over 80% of the time (but less than 90%); 1-2 non-purposeful movements; student projects to the back of the room 80-89% of the time

5 pointsEye contact is less than 80%; more than 2 non-purposeful movements; inaudible in back of room more than 20% of the time

Comprehension and Accuracy

20 pointsStudent answered POTUS’s question correctly, providing at least 2 accurate supporting facts

12 pointsStudent answered POTUS’s question correctly, providing at least 1 accurate supporting fact

5 pointsStudent failed to answer question correctly or could not provide a supporting fact

Quality of Proposed Solutions, Justifications, Process, or Lessons Learned

50 pointsProposed solutions, justifications, processes, or lessons learned are pertinent (addresses issue) and accurate (based on reliable source(s) of information) with respect to the group problem statement or the process of addressing the problem.

30 pointsProposed solutions, justifications, processes, or lessons learned are pertinent (addresses issue) but only 80%-99% accurate (based on reliable source(s) of information) with respect to the group problem statement or the process of addressing the problem.

5 pointsProposed solutions, justifications, processes, or lessons learned are not pertinent or are not accurate.

Reflection 10 pointsStudent answers all 5 reflection questions

6 pointsStudent answers 4 of the reflection questions

0 pointsStudent answers less than 4 reflection questions

Score Conversion Chart

A 88-100

B 74-87

C 60-73

D 50-59

F Less than 50

Two Alternative Solutions and “Best” Solution Analysis

PBL Title: House of Representatives propose budget agreements to avoid “sequester cuts”

NGSSS in Social Studies:

SS.912.C.2.4: Evaluate, take, and defend positions on issues that cause the government to balance the interests of individuals with the public good.

LO #1: Given the national issue of sequester cuts due 1 March 2013, the students divided into two groups, Democrats and Republicans, will evaluate and will take three (3) plausible positions per group and will defend one (1) position per group to balance the interests of individuals with the public good per the rubric with 80% accuracy.

SS.912.C.2.11: Analyze public policy solutions or courses of action to resolve a local, state, or federal issue.

LO #2: Given the other side’s proposed position to avoid sequester cuts, the students again divided into two groups, Democrats and Republicans, will analyze the other side’s position in order to develop an overarching solution to avoid the draconian cuts on 1 March 2013 per the rubric with 80% accuracy.

NGSSS in Language Arts:

LA.1112.4.3.1: The student will write essays that state a position or claim, present detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support effective arguments and emotional appeals, and acknowledge and refute opposing arguments.

LO #3: Given the national issue of sequester cuts due 1 March 2013 and proposed solutions from the groups, the students individually will develop a plausible agreement, will present detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support the proposed solution and emotional appeals, and will acknowledge and refute opposing arguments in a final report per the rubric with 80% accuracy.

Problem Statement:

How can we, as members of the House of Representatives both Democrats and Republicans, develop and present a budget agreement to prevent sequestration in such that:

We meet the deadline of 1 March 2013 We reduce the overall national debt We do not compromise the security of the United States We do not significantly affect the solvency of programs such as Medicare and IDEA

Solution One:

Given our national debt of over $16.5 trillion, the House of Representatives has proposed a budget agreement that realizes a total savings of $1.2 trillion over the next decade. In order to meet this goal, we are proposing a 10.4 percent reduction for most parts of the Pentagon and a 7.2 percent decrease for most discretionary nondefense agencies. Given our current fiscal situation, all entities involved will experience cuts, but the Department of Defense will realize the majority of the cuts. Additionally, major defense contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin will experience significant impacts. The draw down in Afghanistan and Iraq will help lessen the impact, but the military will definitely experience massive cuts to major acquisition programs. Additionally, in order to reduce our national debt, additional revenue is required. Currently, individuals who have taxable income of over $400K are in the 39.6 tax bracket. This tax bracket will be raised to 49.6%. Each tax bracket below $400K experience an 8%, 6%, 4%, and 2% increase, respectively. Individuals earning $36,250 or less will not experience any income tax increase.

Pro ConThe Department of Defense can absorb the spending cuts

Military spending measured against GDP will continue to reach historic lows affecting readiness

The highest income earners will not experience significant impacts (basic necessities) with an increase in federal income taxes

The highest income earners may relocate residence, businesses, and/or increase outsourcing negatively affecting revenues

Discretionary nondefense programs such as Medicare and IDEA will not experience significant cuts

National security will be reduced to promote the general welfare of the masses

The Department of Defense will only address the most significant threats to the United States and her allies (proliferation of nuclear weapons)

The Department of Defense will not address potentially significant threats (i.e. Operations in Central Africa)

Consequences:

Simply stated, reducing the Department of Defense’s budget reduces national security. With respect to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), military spending is already approaching historic lows.

Any federal tax increases could upset a fragile economy and potentially could cause another recession.

Solution Two:

Given our national debt of over $16.5 trillion, the House of Representatives has proposed a budget agreement that realizes a total savings of $1.2 trillion over the next decade. In order to meet this goal, we are proposing an 8.4 percent reduction for most parts of the Pentagon and a 9.2 percent decrease for most discretionary nondefense agencies. Given our current fiscal situation, all entities involved will experience cuts, but under this scenario discretionary nondefense agencies will realize the majority of the cuts. The military and defense contractors will experience less severe cuts to major acquisition programs. Due to the fragile nature of the economy, Representatives did not seek additional revenue such as an increase to federal income tax rates.

Pro ConNational security will be less affected by military cuts

Discretionary nondefense programs such as Medicare and IDEA will experience significant cuts

Major defense contractors will avoid layoffs and will continue to support major acquisition programs

Massive layoffs will occur in the discretionary nondefense programs

Government employees facing layoffs will NOT challenge their termination in court since they have not been terminated

A serious review to cut “unnecessary” federal positions will be avoided and the costs of government could continue to rise

Increased federal income tax rates will not affect the fragile state of the economy

Without additional revenues, realizing a total savings of $1.2 trillion will be more difficult to achieve/spending cuts much deeper

Consequences:

All citizens depending on discretionary nondefense programs such as Medicare and IDEA will be negatively affected. Both services and in some cases, employment positions will be reduced.

Without additional revenue streams, spending cuts must be deeper in order to realize the $1.2 trillion savings over 10 years.

Justification:

Best Solution: Solution One. Given the magnitude of this national fiscal crisis, any proposed solution to realistically resolve this problem will inherently impact national security AND the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. Thus, balancing these two objectives with spending cuts and additional revenues is the best direction for our nation to produce the desirable outcome. Under this solution, military spending measured against GDP will continue to reach historic lows affecting readiness. However, since the United States possesses the greatest

military in the world and spends approximately 2% more on defense than the high majority of the rest of the world (3.6% vs. 1-2% of GDP), this particular part of the budget agreement is a calculated risk that appreciably helps avert “financial Armageddon.” Additionally, the United States CANNOT execute decade-long campaigns simply because as of February 2013, the United States does not have the financial resources to execute operations other than a direct attack on the United States or her allies. National security will be reduced but will not be compromised. Because this fiscal dilemma is so massive, solution one affects discretionary nondefense programs such as Medicare and IDEA, as well. In relatively terms, these types of programs will not experience unreasonable cuts. Again, all government organizations must participate in order to resolve this overarching crisis. Of course, some programs legally cannot be cut, but all programs that legally can be cut should be considered. Despite the weakness of the US economy, raising federal income tax rates on the majority of Americans is the correct decision to help resolve this problem. The highest earners will experience a 10% tax increase, and each tax bracket below $400K experience an 8%, 6%, 4%, and 2% increase, respectively. Individuals earning $36,250 or less will not experience any income tax increase. The implementation of additional tax revenues will ensure this nation meets the goal of realizing a total savings of $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Although solution two is feasible, the burden of the spending cuts cannot reasonably fall on discretionary nondefense programs, especially since the Department of Defense can absorb the spending cuts. To potentially lessen the impact, there needs to be a contingency plan established to increase resources rapidly in the event of a direct attack on the United States or her allies. Furthermore, solution two does not address additional revenue streams which are a necessity to ensure the overall goal is reached. Granted, the US economy is in a fragile state, but the alternative of spiraling debt is equally important that needs to be addressed accordingly.

Many will argue that major acquisition programs cannot produce 5th and 6th generation weapon systems quickly, and this argument is correct. However, this current fiscal situation is dictating future expenditures, and this nation cannot simply ignore this crisis any longer. Uncontrolled spending could easily be the downfall of the United States. We, as a nation, CANNOT conduct business, as usual!

Debriefing Plan and Coaching Questions

Debriefing Plan:

All students acting as members of the House of Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans will make presentations to the “POTUS” in the presence of all “Representatives.” Thus, all students will hear all justifications of the compromised budget agreement to prevent sequestration. The teacher will act as a scribe and record the justifications of the proposed budget agreement. These justifications will be provided in a handout to all students on the day of class following the presentations. For each justification, the students will identify each “pro” and “con” from the presentation and rate the “pros” and “cons” using this table…

3 – ProsCapture each “pro” in the

brief. Write the rating of the “pro” beside it.

Pro Total 3 – ConsCapture each “con” in the brief. Write the rating of

the “con” beside it.

Con Total Subtract the “con” total from the “pro” total and record the difference. Note: this value could be negative.

“Pro” Rating Scale “Con” Rating Scale

1 Good basic idea, but would need extensive 1 This would not help the problem but has an easy fix. revision before it would be workable.3 I am cautiously optimistic how this will work. 3 This would not help solve the problem and would take major I see at least one area that may be problematic. revisions.5 Best idea that I have ever heard – will definitely 5 This is a killer idea – I see a major flaw that would definitely achieve the goal/solve the problem. result in failing to solve the problem if we adopted the plan.

These justifications will then be examined by the entire class. The teacher will ask the class if there is a way to compromise on a better budget agreement. Through a class discussion, the students will reach consensus on portions of the justifications for implementation to enhance the proposed solution prior to completing the final report.

Five Essential Concepts

The “best” budget agreement must address the following topics:

1) Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-155)/Budget Control Act of 20112) National Security

3) General Welfare (Healthcare Costs)4) Unemployment 5) Reduction of National Debt

In addition to these topics, the budget agreement must outline a “path to prosperity.” In other words, the budget agreement should implement provisions that prevent a similar situation for future generations to address. The immediate objective of the budget agreement is to prevent sequestration. The best solution resolves potential financial issues over the next two decades and beyond.

At the conclusion of each “working session” until the budget agreement proposal, the teacher will ask questions of the “Representatives.” The teacher will pose questions addressing the aforementioned five essential concepts even if the students did not address all the essential concepts on any given session. The discussion at the end of each session will serve as an opportunity for the teacher to ensure that each student has attained sufficient understanding of each learning outcome. Lastly, the teacher will stress the importance of addressing these five essential concepts in each student’s final report.

Coaching Questions

C – Cognitive

M – Meta-cognitive

E – Epistemic

Type of Question Question

Meet the ProblemC What is the student role in this problem?M What do you already know about sequestration?E Will this problem be easy or hard to solve? Why?

Know/Need to Know BoardC What is the current fiscal environment contributing to sequestration?M How do you “know” this?E What obstacles do you see?

Problem StatementC What are the ramifications that the nation will experience if sequestration is

executed?M Does everybody in your group agree on the written problem statement? What

would you add to the problem statement?E What factors do you need to consider in order to reach a “good” budget agreement?

ResearchC How might you determine information related to the development of your “best”

solution?M How have you added to the group’s knowledge of sequestration and the research

findings of supporting information on your “best” proposal?E Why is that important?

Generating Possible SolutionsC What are the strengths of other possible budget agreements? What are their

weaknesses?M How did the group arrive at this budget agreement?E Will this solution resolve all issues? If not, what are the unresolved issues?