Week 3 • Find the decision-maker
Who can help make a change?
Begin when Mr. Fullerton assigns Week 3. Bring your Week 2 problem choice and the perspectives you compared.
You have noticed a problem and listened to different needs. Now investigate who can make a decision about it. Your job is to explain a likely match and what you still need to check—not to have every answer.
Your destination: a Decision-Maker Map: a short record connecting your problem to a person, organization, or government body that may be able to act. Allow about 35–50 minutes, divided into short work periods.
Your six steps for Week 3
- Learn the difference between helping and deciding.
- Practice matching a decision to an authority.
- Explore the fictional case or investigate your own problem.
- Draft your Decision-Maker Map.
- Compare, question, and revise.
- Check your work and finish.
Helping is not always deciding
People who experience the problem. They can explain needs you might miss.
People who can contribute ideas, time, information, or resources.
People or bodies with authority—the responsibility or permission to approve a particular action.
One person can fit more than one role. A helpful person may still need someone else’s approval. Start with the specific decision, then ask who is responsible for it.
Students want the school book room open at a different time. Students can explain when they are available. Volunteers might help organize books. The staff member managing the room can explain its schedule, but a change may also need school leadership approval. We should check the school’s process before claiming who can approve it.
My reasoning: “I would start with the book-room manager because the question concerns the room’s schedule. I still need to find out who approves staffing and hours.”
Choose a place to begin
- School or organization: ask who manages the activity and who approves changes.
- Local or state government: look for the office responsible for the service. Responsibilities vary by place.
- Federal government: Congress makes federal laws; federal agencies carry out responsibilities assigned to them. A problem happening in many places does not, by itself, prove that Congress should handle it.
Several organizations or levels of government may share responsibility. “I need to check” is a useful answer when you explain how you will check.
Background: USAGov: branches of government and state and local government directory. You can complete this mission using the written case below.
Who can make this particular decision?
Follow the responsibility trail
Choose one route. Both prepare you for the same Decision-Maker Map.
Route A • Fictional school book-room case
The book room opens during an activity that some students attend. They want another borrowing time. These are invented case facts, not claims about your school:
- The book-room manager organizes borrowing and suggests opening times.
- The principal approves changes to the room’s hours and staff assignments.
- A parent volunteer can help only during an approved session.
- Students have not yet been asked which additional time would work.
Your investigation: Who would you ask first for information? Who approves the change in this case? Who can help? What do you still need to learn from students?
G5–6: Explain why these facts do not yet justify a federal practice bill. A useful local problem can remain a local problem.
Route B • Use your own Week 2 problem
- State one decision your problem may require, such as changing a schedule or reviewing a service.
- Use information supplied by Mr. Fullerton or an official school, organization, or government page to identify a likely responsible role.
- Record the page title and link, or the classroom source, and the detail supporting your match.
- If the source does not establish authority, label the match “needs checking” and write a question for Mr. Fullerton.
You do not need to contact anyone or share personal information. If you cannot find a useful source, use Route A and explain how its reasoning might apply to your problem.
My Decision-Maker Map
This map is the Week 3 section of your iCivics Project Notebook, the same Google Doc containing your Problem Card and Week 2 work.
Open your notebook here each time
Teacher review: The Week 3 section is ready in the master notebook. Mr. Fullerton will assign each student a private copy through Google Classroom; this button will be connected to that grade’s assignment before launch.
When connected, this button will open the assignment provided by Mr. Fullerton. Open your attached notebook and find Week 3 • My Decision-Maker Map. Type in the blue response boxes. Google Docs saves automatically while you are connected. Return through this same button each time.
Your notebook prompts
- Our problem: What problem are we investigating? What changed since Week 2?
- The decision: What specific action or decision might help us address it?
- Who is affected, who can help, and who can decide? Name roles or organizations and explain the difference.
- My evidence: What source supports my choice of decision-maker? Give its title or link and a supporting detail. For Route A, cite “Week 3 fictional book-room case.”
- Still to check: What authority or information is uncertain? How could we find out?
- After comparison: What did I change or keep, and why? What did I contribute, and what will I do next?
Draft your map first. Complete the final reflection after Step 5.
Test the match, not the person
Project coaching: 11:45–12:15 • G4 Thursdays • G5 Mondays • G6 Tuesdays.
- Prepare: Bring your own draft map and one uncertainty.
- Share: Each person explains the decision-maker they chose and their evidence.
- Discuss: Students lead while Mr. Fullerton listens. Ask: “Can this person approve the action, or only help? What supports our answer?”
- Revise individually: Improve your own map and explain what changed or stayed the same.
- Report back: An agreed spokesperson summarizes the team’s match, evidence, and unresolved question when Mr. Fullerton rejoins.
Discussion Guide
Invite each person to explain. Keep the discussion focused on the decision.
Evidence Checker
Ask what supports the authority claim. Notice assumptions.
Connection Maker
Summarize agreements and remaining questions in the assigned team document.
Rotate from your Week 2 role. In a four-person team, the Process Checker checks that everyone contributes and knows the next step. A role does not replace your individual map.
Working independently or waiting for your group?
Compare your draft with the book-room example. Explain one similarity and one difference. Test whether you confused a helper with a decision-maker, revise your map, and record a question for Mr. Fullerton. You can complete every learning step using this page.
Team record: In your assigned shared document, record the current problem, proposed decision-maker, supporting source, unresolved question, and each member’s next contribution. Keep earlier choices so you can explain your changes.
Start with one decision
I cannot name a decision-maker.
Start with a role: “the person managing the room” or “the office responsible for the service.” Write what you need to verify. A role is more useful than guessing a person’s name.
I found two possible decision-makers.
Explain the part each might control. Who can provide information? Who can approve the action? Which responsibility still needs checking?
My G5–6 problem may not fit a federal bill.
That is a useful finding. Explain why and bring an alternative or a question to Mr. Fullerton. Do not stretch your evidence just to make the topic fit.
Sentence starter: “I think ___ can decide about ___ because ___. My source is ___. I still need to check ___.”
Check your map
- I named a specific decision connected to the problem.
- I distinguished affected people, helpers, and a likely decision-maker.
- I gave a supporting source or labeled my match as needing verification.
- I identified an unanswered question and a way to investigate it.
- I compared ideas and explained my own contribution and revision.
Your checkpoint is a reasoned community decision-maker match. You are not preparing an AC or NC bill.
Your AC topic remains provisional until Mr. Fullerton reviews its federal fit. Record his feedback in your notebook before moving into bill drafting.
Your AC topic remains provisional until Mr. Fullerton reviews its federal fit. Record his feedback, including any responsibility that is shared or still uncertain.
Follow Mr. Fullerton’s posted Pearson assignment directions for the subject and submission. This website does not submit work to Pearson. If assignment details are not posted, your completed notebook remains ready for review.
Stop here • Week 3 is complete
You may review and improve your map. Begin Week 4 when Mr. Fullerton assigns it. Next: investigate evidence and compare possible approaches.
Teacher guide • Week 3
Assess the reasoning, source use, distinction between support and authority, and individual revision. A well-explained uncertainty is preferable to an unsupported claim. The fictional case is a complete alternate route with the same learning goal.
G4 develops its community proposal. For G5–6, review the specific proposed federal action and supporting source before approving an AC topic. Record “ready to investigate,” “revise,” or “needs more evidence,” with a next step. This lesson does not establish legal authority or replace current YLI topic requirements.
Before student launch: add the Week 3 map to the master notebook using its established blue response boxes and weekly page break; connect each grade’s Classroom assignment; supply dates and Pearson directions. No additional website response form is needed.