Fairy Tale Trial - Who Kidnapped Cinderella and Prince Charming?

Who Kidnapped Cinderella & Prince Charming?

I've always wanted to have a mock trial with my class, but I never could figure out exactly how I wanted to approach it...so, like other good ideas it was relegated to that elusive "Someday" category.  Then I was browsing Teachers Pay Teachers, and I stumbled across Kathleen Applebee's "Game: Fairy Tale Wedding (Mystery Activity)"   (http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Game-Fairy-Tale-Wedding-Mystery-Activity-Package) I finally found something that I could work with!

She has the activity set up more like a Mystery Dinner Theater - where students have a dossier to study and become that character.  She sets out food for the day of the event and lets students wander and talk to each other.  Then she passes out forms for the students to say guess who did it. It sounds like a lot of fun, but I have 32 students, and I wanted something a little more formal.  I took her wonderful dossiers and assigned each part to two students.  They had to decide which one would play the character and which one would be the defense attorney for that character.  Each character knows what they had been doing the night before and the morning that the two went missing  (right before their wedding, of course) as well as a little information about a couple of the other characters.  That is a great starting point to start asking questions.  

Here's how I set it up:  

There were 14 characters - I assigned two students to each character.  That was 28 roles.  The characters were all from other fairy tales, such as Jack & the Beanstalk, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Three Billy Goats Gruff, Rapunzel, The Pied Piper, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Beauty & the Beast, Rumplestiltskin, The Three Little Pigs, and Little Red Riding Hood.  We did take some time talking about these fairy tales and the genre before we began.

I still had 4 more students, so I made them the king and his guards.  I wrote a separate dossier for the king, and I gave these students the two additional reports brought in by the king's guards.  No one was allowed to share their dossier with anyone else.  

The students had to come up with questions for all of the other characters - questions that they could ask at trial to get the right information.  No one but the guilty was allowed to lie, but they were encouraged to stretch the truth or embellish.  They also had to try to figure out the types of questions that there character might be asked, and come up with plausible reasons for their actions.

Students were encouraged to dress as their character or as the attorney - it added to the spirit of the event and made it all the more fun!

Trial Kings

Trial Characters

Trial Attorneys

The Trial:

Each student was called to the stand and sworn in.  Then each attorney asked one question, followed by each of the four kings asking a question as well.  Once the character was fully questioned, the defense attorney could ask three questions to explain away some facts that might make their character look guilty.  The attorneys had to ask questions - not testify.  Even if they knew something, they had to ask the right question to get the character to say what they were getting at.  The students did an amazing job asking good questions, listening for important details, and staying in character!  There was so much learning packed into this fun activity - Genre - Fairy Tales, Character Development and Character Traits, Asking Good Questions, Listening Skills, Deductive Reasoning!  

What a fun day - and tons of learning to boot!!!!

No Child Left Behind - Except the Gifted?

        The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act took effect in 2002 and focuses on improving education for disadvantaged students.  Specifically the law sought to improve student achievement and to hold states and schools more accountable. This law affects what students are taught, the tests they are given, teacher training, and how money is spent on education. 
         With such lofty goals as requiring every child to perform at grade level, scoring proficiency or higher, further requiring all students to graduate high school, and all limited English students to become proficient in English, NCLB tends to level student achievement rather than stimulate further growth for all students. 
          By requiring states to meet these standards, this law pushed schools to pour their limited resources into moving low performing students toward proficiency.  The unintentional result, thereby being a “focus on remediation rather than acceleration.”  (Duke Today, today.duke.edu/2007/02/gifted.oped.html, 2/1/07)
           Are our G/T students victims of this well-intentioned law?  According to an “Education Week,” February 21, 2012 article “Don’t Leave Gifted Students Behind,” students from coast to coast are not progressing, their learning not being commensurate with potential.  The National Assessment of Educational Progress (the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas) states that the achievement for our highest performers has stagnated, while our lowest performing students have made significant gains.  
A report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found a decline in achievement among America’s top students.  This was the first study to examine the performance of our highest achieving children over time, and sought to answer the questions, “Is our obsession with closing achievement gaps and ‘leaving no child behind’ coming at the expense of our ‘talented tenth’ – and America’s future competitiveness?”  “Do students who outscore their peers on standardized achievement tests remain at the top of the pack year after year?”
          The results indicate that NCLB ignores and drives resources from our strongest students.  There were three major findings.  First, while the majority of high achieving students (57.3%) maintained their status over time, a substantial number (30-50%) fell.  Second, most of the descenders did not fall far – most stayed in the 70th percentile or higher.  Finally, high achievers grew at similar rates to low and mid achievers in Math, but at slower rates in Reading. 
While at first glance these findings do not appear alarming, further consideration raises some valid concerns.  Are we okay with allowing 30-50% of our best and brightest to fall over time?  Even if it is true that they do not fall far, there is a huge difference between the 70th percentile and the 90th percentile.  Aren’t these the students that represent our future leaders and problem solvers?  Are we satisfied with allowing these students to wind up among the “above average” – or should our goal be to keep these students among the “top achievers?” 
          The National Association of Gifted Children (NAGC) estimates that approximately 6% of U.S. students (K-12) are gifted. Yet, from 1977-2007 less than 1% of federal education dollars was devoted to gifted education.  In 2007 it was .026%.  The NAGC “Why We Should Advocate for Gifted and Talented Students,” states  “Although gifted education programs and services yield increased learning gains for high-ability students, gifted education funding at the state and local levels ebbs and flows with the economy.  14 states allocated less than $500,000 in state funds for gifted programs in 2004-2005.”
          While the Javits Act is a provision of the No Child Left Behind law, and does authorize federal funds for research grants to support programs and services for GATE education, it is simply not enough.  In 2007 the Javits Act received 2.6 cents per $100 of federal education funding, while the IDEA program received nearly $32 per $100!  The “No Child Left Behind” law simply does not put enough federal dollars towards America’s future success! 

Sources:

Duke Today, today.duke.edu/2007/02/gifted.html
    The Children Neglected by No Child Left Behind, February 1, 2007
Written by
    •    Kristen Stephens – A gifted education research specialist at Duke University’s Talent Education Program
    •    Jan Riggsbee – Faculty member of Duke’s Program in Education & Director of Duke’s Gifted Licensure Program

Education Week, www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/22/21spielhagen.h31.html
    Don’t Leave Gifted Students Behind, February 21, 2012 
Written by Frances R. Spielhagen

www.greatschools.org

National Association of Gifted Children, www.nagc.org

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, September 20, 2011 , www.edexcellence.net/publications/high-flyers.html
    Written by
    •    Robert Theaker
    •    Yun Xiang
    •    Michael Dahlin
    •    John Cronin
    •    Sarah Durant