Becoming a citizen, duties and responsibilities, and ways to take part

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to D on student speech (the excerpts are exact; card D is made up). Card A, "Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the opinion of the Court". Who made it: Justice Abe Fortas, writing for the majority. When: February 24, 1969. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to explain the decision about students who wore armbands to school. Excerpt 1: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Excerpt 2: "…conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason … materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." Excerpt 3: "But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression." Card B, "Tinker, the dissent". Who made it: Justice Hugo Black, disagreeing with the Court. When: February 24, 1969. For whom: the public, the bar and later courts. Why: to explain why he would have decided the other way. Excerpt 1: "The Court's holding in this case ushers in what I deem to be an entirely new era in which the power to control pupils by the elected 'officials of state supported public schools * * *' in the United States is in ultimate effect transferred to the Supreme Court." Excerpt 2: "I wish, therefore, wholly to disclaim any purpose on my part to hold that the Federal Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students." Card C, "Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. (2021)". Who made it: Justice Stephen Breyer, for an 8 to 1 Supreme Court. When: June 23, 2021. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a public school could suspend a student from the cheerleading squad for posts made off campus. Excerpt 1: "Unlike the Third Circuit, we do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus. The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances." Excerpt 2: "courts must be more skeptical of a school's efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all. When it comes to political or religious speech that occurs outside school or a school program or activity, the school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention." Excerpt 3: "…the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers." Card D, "Northgate High School (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Case 1: On a Saturday, from home, student Sana Reyes posts a video calling the school's new phone ban unfair. No class is disturbed, but two teachers say the post will make the ban harder to enforce. The school removes Sana from the student council. Case 2: On a Tuesday, from a library computer during study hall, student Dev Patel posts a call to walk out at noon. Eighty students leave, and classes in two hallways stop for 30 minutes. The school disciplines Dev. Case 3: From home, student Rui Okafor posts a step-by-step way to get around the filter on school-issued laptops. By Monday, 40 students are using it during lessons. The school disciplines Rui.

2. 1.

   Case 1 on card D is a weekend video from home that disturbed no class. Zee applies cards A and C. Which reasoning is strongest?

   • Weak for the school, because Mahanoy bars schools from disciplining any off-campus speech
   • Strong for the school: Tinker reaches conduct in class or out of it, and the post was about the school's own rules
   • Strong for the school: two teachers expect the ban to be harder to enforce, which is a material disruption of school
   • Weak for the school: Tinker needs more than fear, and card C asks for more skepticism off campus
3. 2.

   Case 3 on card D is a post from home that gets 40 students around the school filter during lessons. Pia reads card C. What follows?

   • The school's case is strong: excerpt 3 names computers and security devices, and 40 students used the workaround in lessons
   • The school's case is weak, because the post expresses an opinion about the filter and so is political speech
   • The school's case is weak: Rui posted from home, and excerpt 2 asks courts to doubt any off-campus regulation by a school
   • The school's case is strong, because Tinker's schoolhouse gate line lets schools control speech on their laptops

4. Use this

   Cards A to D on voting by age (card A and card C are exact; card B is real survey data; card D is made up). Card A, "The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)". Who made it: Congress proposed it and the states ratified it. When: ratified July 1, 1971. For whom: the people of the United States. Why: to lower the voting age. Excerpt (Amendment XXVI, Section 1): "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." Card B, "Record High Turnout in 2020 General Election". Who made it: Jacob Fabina, an economist at the U.S. Census Bureau. When: April 29, 2021. For whom: the public. Why: to report how many citizens voted in the 2020 and 2016 elections. Table, columns Age group | Percent of citizens who voted, 2016 | 2020: 18 to 34 | 49 | 57; 35 to 64 | 65 | 69; 65 and older | 71 | 74. Card C, "The survey behind card B". Same maker, date, readers and aim as card B. Excerpt: "Due to the nature of survey responses, these estimates may differ from administrative reports and estimates from other data sources." Card D, "Shares of citizens by age (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Table, columns Age group | Share of citizens, 2016 | 2020: 18 to 34 | 30 percent | 29 percent; 35 to 64 | 48 percent | 47 percent; 65 and older | 22 percent | 24 percent. The shares are made up for practice; the turnout rates on card B are real.

5. 3.

   A councilmember says the Twenty-sixth Amendment explains why turnout for ages 18 to 34 rose from 49 to 57. Jun tests the claim. What is the best verdict?

   • Weak: the amendment applied in 2016 as well as 2020, so alone it cannot explain a change between them
   • Strong: card A covers citizens 18 or older, so any rise in turnout for that age group follows from it
   • Strong: by 2020 the amendment had been in force 49 years, a longer time than when it applied in 2016
   • Strong: the amendment lowered the voting age, and the 18-to-34 group includes the new voters it added
6. 4.

   Card D gives each age group's share of citizens. Kira weights the turnout rates on card B. How much of the overall rise came from higher turnout inside each group?

   • Nearly all of it: with 2016 shares held fixed, 2020 turnout would be about 66.5, against 61.5 in 2016
   • None can be told: card C says survey estimates may differ from other sources, so no comparison of rates holds
   • Little of it: turnout rose a good deal for the 18-to-34 group while the other two groups stayed level
   • About half: the 65-and-older share grew from 22 to 24 percent, and that group votes at the highest rate
7. 5.

   A reporter writes: "Exactly 57 percent of young citizens voted in 2020." Ren tests the claim against cards B and C. What is the best verdict?

   • Correct for 2020, but the 49 percent for 2016 must be wrong, since it came from the same kind of survey
   • Overstated: card B comes from a survey of what people reported, and card C says such figures may differ from other sources
   • Correct: card B is a Census Bureau table, so it counts the actual ballots cast by citizens aged 18 to 34
   • Wrong: survey figures cannot be used as evidence, so the 57 percent figure tells us nothing about young citizens
8. 6.

   A writer says the Twenty-sixth Amendment failed, since citizens 18 to 34 voted 17 points below those 65 and older in 2020. Milo looks for missing evidence. What would most challenge the writer?

   • Whether citizens aged 18 and over were allowed to vote in the 2020 election, since card A says that they were
   • Whether the gap between young and older adults was as wide before 1971, when fewer of the young could vote
   • How many citizens aged 65 and older lived in the country in 2020, to weigh the influence of that group
   • Whether turnout for ages 18 to 34 rose between 2016 and 2020, as card B already shows that it did

9. Use this

   Cards A to D on becoming a citizen (the excerpts are exact statute text; card D is made up). Card A, "The residence rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)". Who made it: Congress, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. For whom: permanent residents who apply to be naturalized. Why: to set the residence and presence requirements. Excerpt: "(1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months," Card B, "The absence rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(b)". Same maker, readers and aim as card A. Excerpt 1: "Absence from the United States of more than six months but less than one year during the period for which continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship, immediately preceding the date of filing the application for naturalization, or during the period between the date of filing the application and the date of any hearing under section 1447(a) of this title, shall break the continuity of such residence, unless the applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he did not in fact abandon his residence in the United States during such period." Excerpt 2: "Absence from the United States for a continuous period of one year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship (whether preceding or subsequent to the filing of the application for naturalization) shall break the continuity of such residence," Card C, "English and civics, 8 U.S.C. § 1423(a)". Same maker, readers and aim as card A. Excerpt: "(1) an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language: Provided, That the requirements of this paragraph relating to ability to read and write shall be met if the applicant can read or write simple words and phrases to the end that a reasonable test of his literacy shall be made and that no extraordinary or unreasonable condition shall be imposed upon the applicant; and (2) a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the principles and form of government, of the United States." Card D, "Three applicants (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Case 1: Ines Sorel has been a permanent resident since March 2019 and files in April 2024. She spent seven months of 2021 abroad caring for a relative. She kept her apartment, her job held her position, and she filed tax returns as a resident that year. Case 2: Tomas Verel has been a permanent resident since June 2019 and files in July 2024. In each of the five years he spent four months abroad on business, 20 months in all, and came back each time to the same home. Case 3: Wen Halloran has been a permanent resident for six years and meets the residence rules. Wen can speak English in ordinary usage and can read and write simple words and phrases. The officer asks Wen to write a long essay in English.

10. 7.

    Case 1 on card D: Ines Sorel spent seven months abroad in 2021. Esme applies cards A and B. Which statement is right?

    • The absence is presumed to break continuity, but Ines may rebut that by showing she did not abandon the residence
    • The absence does not matter, since card B counts absences of a year or more as the ones that break residence
    • Physical presence settles it: seven months abroad leaves the applicant present for above half of the five years
    • The absence breaks continuity for good, since more than six months abroad ends the continuous residence in the country
11. 8.

    Case 2 on card D: Tomas Verel spent four months abroad in each of five years. Tala applies cards A and B. What follows?

    • Continuity is broken, since 20 months abroad in total passes the six-month line that card B sets for an absence
    • Both tests are met once Tomas rebuts the absences, since each trip was for business rather than family
    • Physical presence fails, since 20 months abroad in total is more than the four months of any one trip
    • Both tests are met: no single absence passes six months, and 40 of 60 months in the country is above half
12. 9.

    Case 3 on card D: an officer asks Wen for a long essay in English. Luz applies card C. Which reasoning is strongest?

    • The demand stands, since the officer is judging the history and government test and not the English-language test
    • The demand stands: card C requires an understanding of English, and a long essay is a fair way to test that understanding
    • The demand is open to challenge: simple words and phrases meet the reading and writing duty, and no extraordinary condition may be imposed
    • The demand fails, since card C exempts applicants who cannot read English from any literacy test at the interview
13. 10.

    Claim: "Five years as a permanent resident is all it takes to be naturalized." Ari tests it against cards A to C. What is the best verdict?

    • Too narrow, because card A asks for ten years of residence once its other tests are counted together with the first
    • Correct: card A sets five years of continuous residence as the one test, and the other lines simply repeat it in other words
    • Too broad, because card B adds a second residence test of one year that a permanent resident must also meet before filing
    • Too broad: card A also needs presence for half the time and three months in the State, and card C adds English and civics