Defining Power: Of Mice and Men & Central Park Five
Created byJule Kilgore-Reed
2 views1 downloads

Defining Power: Of Mice and Men & Central Park Five

Grade 9English20 days
This 9th-grade English project challenges students to investigate how intersections of race, class, and ability define individual power by comparing John Steinbeck’s "Of Mice and Men" with the historical Central Park Five case. Students analyze power hierarchies across the 1930s and 1980s, deconstructing how media rhetoric and societal labels manufacture systemic prejudice in both fiction and reality. The experience culminates in a Justice Advocacy Pitch, where students synthesize evidence from history and literature to propose actionable solutions for modern-day inequities in their own communities.
PowerPrejudiceIntersectionalityRhetoricJusticeAdvocacyHierarchy
Want to create your own PBL Recipe?Use our AI-powered tools to design engaging project-based learning experiences for your students.
📝

Inquiry Framework

Question Framework

Driving Question

The overarching question that guides the entire project.How do the intersections of race, class, and ability determine an individual's power, and how can we use historical and fictional narratives to challenge systemic prejudice in our world today?

Essential Questions

Supporting questions that break down major concepts.
  • How do societal labels based on race, class, gender, and ability create or restrict an individual's power?
  • In what ways does a lack of power influence how individuals treat those even more vulnerable than themselves?
  • How does the historical context of the 1930s (Of Mice and Men) compare to the 1980s (Central Park Five) in terms of who the justice system protects?
  • How do authors and filmmakers use specific evidence and narratives to expose power imbalances in society?
  • Can an individual maintain their sense of self-worth when society tells them they are powerless?
  • How do Steinbeck’s characters and the real-life Central Park Five illustrate the consequences of systemic prejudice?

Standards & Learning Goals

Learning Goals

By the end of this project, students will be able to:
  • Analyze how themes of power and powerlessness are developed in 'Of Mice and Men' through character interactions and plot progression, citing specific textual evidence.
  • Evaluate the impact of race, class, and intellectual ability on the legal and social treatment of individuals in the Central Park Five case compared to characters in Steinbeck's novel.
  • Synthesize information from fictional narratives and historical accounts to explain how systemic prejudice functions across different eras (1930s vs. 1980s).
  • Construct a cohesive, evidence-based argument that explores the relationship between an individual's perceived power and their behavior toward more vulnerable members of society.
  • Collaborate with peers to engage in civil discourse regarding complex social issues, using rhetoric and evidence to challenge contemporary systemic biases.
  • Develop and refine a final project (written or multimedia) that demonstrates a formal style and objective tone while advocating for justice and equity.

Common Core State Standards (ELA)

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.9-10.1
Primary
Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.Reason: Students must use specific evidence from 'Of Mice and Men' to analyze power dynamics and character motivations.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.9-10.2
Primary
Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze in detail its development over the course of the text, including how it emerges and is shaped and refined by specific details.Reason: The project centers on the themes of power, prejudice, and the human condition as developed throughout the novel.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.3
Primary
Analyze how the author unfolds an analysis or series of ideas or events, including the order in which the points are made, how they are introduced and developed, and the connections that are drawn between them.Reason: Students will analyze the sequence of events and the construction of the narrative in 'The Central Park Five' to understand how the case against them was built.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.6
Secondary
Determine an author's point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how an author uses rhetoric to advance that point of view or purpose.Reason: Crucial for analyzing the documentary or historical texts about the Central Park Five to understand how the story is being framed.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.1.C
Secondary
Use words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships among claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims.Reason: Necessary for the final summative writing piece where students connect fiction and historical evidence.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.5
Supporting
Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience.Reason: Reflects the PBL process of iterative feedback and revision for the final project.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.1
Primary
Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grades 9-10 topics, texts, and issues, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.Reason: The inquiry process requires deep discussion about sensitive topics like race, class, and ability.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.4
Secondary
Present information, findings, and supporting evidence clearly, concisely, and logically such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and the organization, development, substance, and style are appropriate to purpose, audience, and task.Reason: Students will present their conclusions on how to challenge systemic prejudice.

Entry Events

Events that will be used to introduce the project to students

The Social Capital Simulation

Students enter a room where they are immediately assigned 'Social Capital' tokens based on arbitrary traits (eye color, height, or shoe brand). They must navigate a series of high-stakes mini-challenges where those with low capital are ignored or penalized, sparking a raw discussion on how physical or socioeconomic traits dictate one's 'volume' in society before a single word is spoken.

The Evidence Locker: 1937 vs. 1989

The classroom is transformed into a 'Cold Case' precinct where students are presented with two disparate files: one from 1930s Salinas and one from 1980s New York, both containing 'evidence' of crimes committed by marginalized individuals. Students must categorize the evidence into 'Fact' vs. 'Perception,' leading them to realize how the system’s bias often manufactures the guilt of the powerless.
📚

Portfolio Activities

Portfolio Activities

These activities progressively build towards your learning goals, with each submission contributing to the student's final portfolio.
Activity 1

The Power Hierarchy Map: 1930s Salinas

In this opening portfolio piece, students will analyze the social hierarchy of the ranch in 'Of Mice and Men.' They will investigate how characters like Curley, Crooks, Candy, and Lennie navigate their environment based on the 'power capital' they possess or lack. This activity sets the stage for understanding how fictional narratives expose systemic power imbalances.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Identify the major characters in 'Of Mice and Men' and list their defining traits (race, physical ability, intellectual ability, gender, economic status).
2. Rank the characters from most powerful to least powerful based on your reading of the first half of the novel.
3. Find at least two pieces of 'strong and thorough textual evidence' for each character that demonstrates their level of influence or vulnerability.
4. Create a visual map (digital or physical) that uses symbols to represent the barriers (like the bunkhouse door or the stable room) that define these power dynamics.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA visual 'Power Hierarchy Map' with annotated textual evidence for each character, explaining their rank in the social order and the source of their power (or lack thereof).

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with RL.9-10.1 (citing textual evidence to support analysis) and RL.9-10.2 (determining a theme and analyzing its development). It specifically focuses on how social traits (ability, class, gender) emerge as factors that shape power dynamics on the ranch.
Activity 2

The Rhetoric of Guilt: NYC 1989

Moving from fiction to history, students will analyze the real-life case of the Central Park Five. They will examine how the media and the legal system used specific language and narrative 'order' to manufacture a perception of guilt. This activity helps students see how power determines whose story is believed.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Examine primary source documents (news clippings or trial transcripts) and documentary clips regarding the 1989 Central Park jogger case.
2. Identify the 'order' in which the facts were presented to the public and how that sequence influenced public perception.
3. Highlight specific rhetorical devices (loaded language, labels, or appeals to fear) used to frame the five teenagers as 'others' or 'predators.'
4. Write a summary explaining how the 'point of view' of the authorities created a system where the truth was less powerful than the narrative.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Rhetorical Analysis Report' that identifies three specific 'narrative moves' used by the media or prosecution to strip the Central Park Five of their power and agency.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with RI.9-10.3 (analyzing how an author unfolds an analysis or series of events) and RI.9-10.6 (determining point of view and analyzing rhetoric). It forces students to look at how the 'narrative of guilt' was constructed by the media and legal system.
Activity 3

The Mirror Matrix: Cross-Era Connections

Students will now find the 'mirrors' between the two texts. By comparing a character from 'Of Mice and Men' (e.g., Crooks or Lennie) with one of the Central Park Five, students will explore how systemic prejudice functions identically across different decades and settings.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Select one character from 'Of Mice and Men' and one individual from the Central Park Five who share a common vulnerability (e.g., race or intellectual ability).
2. Research the historical context of the 1930s vs. the 1980s to understand what 'protections' or 'threats' existed for these individuals.
3. Draft a comparative statement explaining how their 'perceived power' influenced how they were treated by the justice system or their community.
4. Find a 'mirror moment'—a specific instance where both individuals were forced to act a certain way because they felt powerless.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Parallel Analysis Chart' that compares two individuals (one fictional, one real) across three categories: Societal Label, Systemic Barrier, and Behavioral Response to Powerlessness.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity bridges RL.9-10.1 and RI.9-10.3, requiring students to synthesize information from both a fictional text and a historical account. It addresses the essential question regarding the impact of race and ability across different eras.
Activity 4

The Cohesion Construction Lab

Students will begin drafting their core argument. The focus here is not just on what they say, but how they connect their ideas. They will practice using transition strategies to link their analysis of Steinbeck's fiction with the historical reality of the Central Park Five, creating a cohesive argument about systemic prejudice.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Write a clear claim that answers the driving question: 'How do race, class, and ability determine an individual's power?'
2. Organize your evidence from previous activities into a logical sequence (e.g., Problem -> Evidence from OMAM -> Evidence from CP5 -> Synthesis).
3. Peer-edit specifically for 'Cohesion Clusters'—ensuring that every paragraph uses logical transitions (e.g., 'Similarly,' 'Conversely,' 'This systemic bias is mirrored in...').
4. Revise the draft based on teacher feedback, focusing on maintaining a formal style and objective tone.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Cohesion Blueprint'—a polished, three-paragraph argumentative draft that uses sophisticated transitions to link fiction, history, and the student's own claim.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with W.9-10.1.c (using words/phrases to create cohesion and clarify relationships) and W.9-10.5 (developing and strengthening writing through revision). It focuses on the 'mechanics of argument' for their final synthesis.
Activity 5

The Justice Advocacy Pitch

In this final activity, students move from analysis to advocacy. They will prepare a presentation that uses the evidence from 'Of Mice and Men' and 'The Central Park Five' to propose a way to 'challenge systemic prejudice' in their own school or community today. They must use their findings to convince an audience that understanding these narratives is the first step toward justice.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Synthesize your findings into a 'Call to Action' that addresses a modern-day power imbalance.
2. Create a visual presentation (slides, video, or infographic) that uses images and quotes from both texts to illustrate your points.
3. Rehearse the presentation to ensure the 'line of reasoning' is easy for a listener to follow without being distracted by too much text.
4. Present to the class and engage in a Q&A session, defending your conclusions with the evidence collected in your portfolio.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Justice Advocacy Pitch'—a 5-minute multimedia presentation that presents a logical line of reasoning and a call to action.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with SL.9-10.4 (presenting findings and evidence clearly and logically) and SL.9-10.1 (participating in collaborative discussions). It serves as the project's 'Public Product.'
🏆

Rubric & Reflection

Portfolio Rubric

Grading criteria for assessing the overall project portfolio

Power, Prejudice, and Perspective: Comparative Portfolio Rubric

Category 1

Critical Textual Analysis

Evaluates the student's ability to extract, analyze, and interpret evidence from fictional and informational texts.
Criterion 1

Evidence & Inference (RL.9-10.1)

Ability to cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of character power dynamics in 'Of Mice and Men' and factual evidence from the Central Park Five case.

Exemplary
4 Points

Demonstrates sophisticated analysis by selecting the most poignant, nuanced evidence from both texts; inferences are perceptive and reveal deep insight into character motivations and systemic pressures.

Proficient
3 Points

Provides thorough and accurate textual evidence to support claims; inferences are logical and clearly connected to the evidence provided from both the novel and historical documents.

Developing
2 Points

Includes some textual evidence, but it may be general or occasionally lack direct relevance to the claim; inferences are basic or inconsistently supported.

Beginning
1 Points

Provides minimal or irrelevant evidence; struggles to draw logical inferences from the texts; evidence does not support the analysis.

Criterion 2

Structural Analysis (RI.9-10.3)

Analysis of how the author (Steinbeck) or the system (NYC Legal/Media) unfolds a series of events or ideas to create a specific narrative of guilt or powerlessness.

Exemplary
4 Points

Skillfully analyzes the intricate connections between events, demonstrating how the sequence and development of ideas were strategically manipulated to manufacture specific public perceptions.

Proficient
3 Points

Clearly analyzes the order of points made and how they are developed to introduce and support a central narrative or case.

Developing
2 Points

Identifies the sequence of events but provides limited analysis of how those events are connected or how they contribute to the overall development of ideas.

Beginning
1 Points

Lists events or ideas chronologically without analyzing how they are introduced, developed, or connected to a larger narrative.

Category 2

Themes and Perspective

Focuses on the deeper meanings, thematic connections, and rhetorical strategies used in the narratives.
Criterion 1

Thematic Development (RL.9-10.2)

Analysis of how the themes of power, prejudice, and systemic bias are developed and refined through character interactions and historical context.

Exemplary
4 Points

Provides a nuanced analysis of how complex themes emerge and are refined by specific, interconnected details across both the 1930s and 1980s contexts.

Proficient
3 Points

Determines a clear theme and analyzes its development in detail, using specific character interactions or historical facts as supporting evidence.

Developing
2 Points

Identifies a theme or central idea but offers a superficial analysis of its development throughout the text or case.

Beginning
1 Points

Identifies a topic rather than a theme; lacks an analysis of how the idea is shaped or refined by details.

Criterion 2

Rhetorical Analysis (RI.9-10.6)

Ability to determine the author's or media's point of view and analyze how rhetoric (loaded language, framing) is used to advance that perspective.

Exemplary
4 Points

Critically deconstructs how sophisticated rhetorical devices and point of view are utilized to strip individuals of agency and manufacture a narrative of 'otherness.'

Proficient
3 Points

Accurately determines point of view and provides a clear analysis of how specific rhetoric is used to support a particular perspective or purpose.

Developing
2 Points

Identifies the point of view but provides limited or inconsistent analysis of the rhetorical strategies used to advance it.

Beginning
1 Points

Struggles to identify the point of view; identifies some language use but fails to connect it to a rhetorical purpose.

Category 3

Argumentative Synthesis & Writing

Assesses the formal structure, logical flow, and iterative development of the student's written arguments.
Criterion 1

Argumentative Cohesion (W.9-10.1.c)

Using words, phrases, and clauses to link major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify relationships between claims, evidence, and cross-era comparisons.

Exemplary
4 Points

Uses a variety of sophisticated transitions and organizational structures to create a seamless, elegant flow of ideas that highlights complex relationships between fiction and history.

Proficient
3 Points

Uses appropriate words and phrases to link sections of the text, creating clear cohesion and clarifying the relationship between various claims and evidence.

Developing
2 Points

Uses basic transitions to link ideas, but the flow of the argument is sometimes choppy or the relationships between points are not always clear.

Beginning
1 Points

Lacks cohesive devices; the writing feels disjointed, making it difficult to follow the relationships between claims and evidence.

Criterion 2

Revision and Process (W.9-10.5)

Evidence of planning, revising, and editing based on feedback to strengthen the argument and address the specific purpose and audience.

Exemplary
4 Points

Demonstrates an exceptional commitment to the writing process, significantly transforming the work through multiple iterations of high-level revision and peer collaboration.

Proficient
3 Points

Develops and strengthens writing through a clear process of planning, revising, and editing to address the most significant aspects of the task.

Developing
2 Points

Shows some evidence of revision or editing, but the changes do not significantly strengthen the argument or address core feedback.

Beginning
1 Points

Provides a draft with little to no evidence of a meaningful revision or planning process.

Category 4

Communication and Advocacy

Evaluates the student's ability to communicate findings to an audience and engage in civil, evidence-based discourse.
Criterion 1

Presentation Clarity (SL.9-10.4)

Presenting findings and supporting evidence clearly, concisely, and logically so listeners can follow a line of reasoning.

Exemplary
4 Points

Delivers a compelling and logical advocacy pitch; uses multimedia elements innovatively to enhance the argument; line of reasoning is flawless and persuasive.

Proficient
3 Points

Presents findings and evidence clearly and logically; organization and style are appropriate to the audience; the line of reasoning is easy to follow.

Developing
2 Points

Presents information with some organization, but the line of reasoning is occasionally unclear or the evidence is not fully integrated into the presentation.

Beginning
1 Points

Presentation is disorganized or lacks sufficient evidence; the audience finds it difficult to follow the speaker's main points or conclusions.

Criterion 2

Collaborative Discourse (SL.9-10.1)

Participating in collaborative discussions, building on others' ideas, and expressing own ideas clearly and persuasively while defending conclusions with evidence.

Exemplary
4 Points

Leads collaborative discussions with sensitivity and insight; masterfully synthesizes diverse perspectives and defends conclusions with high-level evidence and poise.

Proficient
3 Points

Participates effectively in discussions, building on others' ideas and expressing own perspectives clearly while using evidence to support claims.

Developing
2 Points

Participates in discussions but may struggle to build on the ideas of others or provides limited evidence when defending a point of view.

Beginning
1 Points

Requires frequent prompting to participate; struggles to express ideas clearly or use evidence to support claims during collaborative work.

Reflection Prompts

End-of-project reflection questions to get students to think about their learning
Question 1

On a scale of 1 to 5, how confident do you now feel in your ability to use evidence from different types of sources to analyze complex social issues like power and prejudice?

Scale
Required
Question 2

How did analyzing the specific language and narrative 'order' used in the Central Park Five case change the way you read or interpret news stories today?

Text
Required
Question 3

Based on your research and analysis, which factor do you believe creates the most significant barrier to power in the justice system, both in the past and today?

Multiple choice
Required
Options
Question 4

What was the most challenging part of moving from 'analyzing the past' to 'advocating for the future' in your Justice Advocacy Pitch?

Text
Required
Question 5

To what extent do you agree that understanding these historical and fictional narratives is a necessary first step toward creating a more just society?

Scale
Required