Institute Participants

Twenty-eight teachers from across the United States were chosen for the National Institute for Advanced Civic Studies (NIACS) through a highly selective application process. Each applicant completed a detailed application, wrote a letter of purpose, and supplied letters of recommendation from supervisors and administrators. Participants came from a variety of K-12 settings, both public and private schools, and nearly all had previously participated in the Center for Civic Education's National Institute or one of the Center's six Regional Institutes. All expenses—including transportation, room, board, and books—were provided for each participant through a grant from the U.S. Department of Education administered by the Center for Civic Education. The Institute provided the participants with source books on cases, interpretations, and the incorporation of Bill of Rights protections through the Fourteenth Amendment (Berger 1997; Hall 1999a; 1999b).

Process for Engaging in Constitutional Discourse

Linking Literature and Application

The benefits of simulations for pedagogical purposes are by now well known. Simulations, in essence, merge the practical application of knowledge earned in the classroom with active learning methods to expand and reinforce that knowledge (Endersby & Webber 1995; Jones 1980; Hardy et al. 1982; Smith & Boyer 1996; Twelker 1973; Vile & Van Dervort. 1994). A simulation provides learners a triple benefit: through simulations students learn more, experience and better understand the vagueness that underlies the theories taught in the classroom, and the activity breaks up the schedule of lecture and discussion that can become monotonous for some students (Jefferson 1999).

In a sense, simulations “provide the laboratories for political science” (Woodworth & Gump 1994). Students literally take their learning into their own hands and experiment with it. Simulations provide added advantages—they can be adapted for large classes (Hardy, King & Riddlesperger 1982), small groups (Hensley 1993), and even multiple classes (Endersby & Webber 1995).

For the NIACS, we followed the general simulation building guidelines established by Smith and Boyer (1996). Owing to the unique character of IACS participants, we had very specific goals in mind—and realizing the teaching goals is Smith and Boyer's first necessary step in designing a simulation.

We wanted the secondary school teachers to actively engage their students in their own learning, and one way of doing this was to break up the potential monotony of long days of pure lecture. Similarly, a classroom simulation can break up a primarily lecture or discussion based course. Since the Institute focused on civil liberties and the constitutional law aspects of the Supreme Court, a simulation involving court proceedings seemed appropriate (Baker 1994).

Most simulations involve a full mock trial, but our compacted time frame (one full week for the entire Institute) made the common trial-to-opinion progression infeasible (Hensley 1993; Pacelle 1989; Whitaker 1973). Furthermore, with the Institute focusing on the decision making of individual justices throughout the 20th century, we chose to incorporate role playing of specific Supreme Court justices into the simulation.

Role playing and simulation are often intertwined (Hensley 1993; Kathlene & Choate 1999; Woodworth & Gump 1994), so merging the two presentedno theoretical and few logistical challenges. As in most simulations, the instructor's greatest responsibility lies in simulation design and preparing the necessary materials ahead of time.

In our opinion, one of the weaknesses of most mock trial simulations is giving short shrift to the deliberation process within the court. Mock trial students usually pick a role and then complete the major collective activity during the trial. For our purposes, and for the goal of paying special attention to decision making in the Court, we made the collective activity the Court's post-trial deliberations and votes.

Consistent with Smith and Boyer's second step, simulation construction, we created 21 hypothetical cases involving current and possible future court issues, including three strikes laws, mandatory publication of convicted sex offender home addresses, search and seizure, and discrimination on the basis of age and race. Each case background was less than one page in length, including issue background and prior court decisions.

After writing the cases, we chose three Courts to divide our participants into. To get unique responses between Courts, we chose those of Charles Evans Hughes, Earl Warren, and William Rehnquist. Since we had 28 participants, we added an extra justice to the Warren Court. This presented no problem. In an even larger group, a teacher could either add more justices to the existing Courts or add more Courts to the simulation.

Central to the simulation was the precise role of an individual justice assigned to each participant. We prepared a brief, four-page biography of each justice for participant reference, but this step would likely be optional in any upper-division constitutional law class where students should already be familiar with individual justices. Moreover, the Internet offers myriad resources on judicial biographies and voting records that are readily available for enterprising students.

Each day, after the lecture and discussion panels, attendees would separate into their individual Courts to deliberate cases and eventually vote. Within each court meeting, the chief justice took on the role of guiding discussion and tracking the Court's vote. Since our participants were teachers eager to participate, the chief justices rarely had to encourage their fellow attendees, but either the instructor or the chief justice can serve that role in the classroom.

After the vote, each justice was required to write at least one majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion. On the Institute's final day, each Court assembled to present brief synopses of their cases and opinions before turning in their individual opinions. While many participants expressed some trepidation at the outset of the week about rendering a decision before their peers, all quickly adopted and were eager to share their opinions.

Turning to Smith and Boyer's third step, this simulation requires significant preparation, but minimal work during the simulation. The single largest block of time went into creating the hypothetical court cases and choosing Courts and justices. Once set in motion, we made ourselves available to the simulated Courts to answer questions and help solve problems during their meetings. Finally, we introduced each Court as they gathered on the last day to present their opinions with the traditional “Oyez, Oyez, Oyez” which commences Supreme Court sessions.

While we created this simulation for high school teachers, it is easily adaptable to the college classroom. The simulation's driving force is the hypothetical case packet, which can be used in an institute such as ours or in a junior-level constitutional law class. Students should perform the simulation activities fairly late in the semester, but the simulation is applicable as long as they understand the constitutional principles involved.

A second advantage to the simulation is its short time frame. Some simulations spread out over the course of numerous weeks. Our simulation can be spread out, but it can also be completed in a short time span—over two weeks in a traditional classroom or two class sessions in a summer or evening class.