The People’s Blueprint: Designing an Inclusive New Deal
Inquiry Framework
Question Framework
Driving Question
The overarching question that guides the entire project.How can we, as historical policy consultants, design a 'forgotten' New Deal program that ensures equitable relief, recovery, and reform for Americans excluded in the 1930s?Essential Questions
Supporting questions that break down major concepts.- How did the social and political tensions of the 1920s shape who the government helped during the Great Depression?
- In what ways did original New Deal policies fail to provide equitable relief to marginalized groups?
- What are the necessary components of a program that effectively provides 'Relief, Recovery, and Reform' for all citizens?
Standards & Learning Goals
Learning Goals
By the end of this project, students will be able to:- Analyze the systemic factors and political tensions of the 1920s and 30s that led to the exclusion or marginalization of Black Americans, Indigenous Peoples, and migrant workers within New Deal legislation.
- Evaluate the effectiveness of the New Deal's 'Relief, Recovery, and Reform' framework by identifying specific historical gaps and 'missed opportunities' for equitable social safety nets.
- Synthesize primary and secondary historical sources to design a comprehensive 'forgotten' New Deal program that addresses a specific 1930s socio-economic crisis for a marginalized group.
- Construct a persuasive historical argument that justifies the need for federal intervention and identifies the constitutional or legislative mechanisms required to implement the proposed 'Blueprint'.
Michigan K-12 Social Studies Standards
Common Core State Standards (History/Social Studies)
Entry Events
Events that will be used to introduce the project to studentsThe 'Missing Page' from the Oval Office
Students enter to find 'Top Secret' folders containing heavily redacted 1930s government documents and a frantic memo from a fictional 'whistleblower' staffer. The memo claims that specific proposals to help Black sharecroppers, Indigenous communities, and women were intentionally buried to appease political allies, challenging students to recover and rebuild these 'lost' blueprints.Portfolio Activities
Portfolio Activities
These activities progressively build towards your learning goals, with each submission contributing to the student's final portfolio.The Fault Lines of the Roaring Twenties
Before students can design a new program, they must understand the systemic barriers that existed before the Great Depression began. In this activity, students select one marginalized group (e.g., Black sharecroppers, Mexican migrant workers, Indigenous Peoples, or women) and investigate how the 'social, cultural, and political tensions' of the 1920s—such as nativism, segregation, and discriminatory economic policies—left this group uniquely vulnerable to the economic crash of 1929.Steps
Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.Final Product
What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Socio-Economic Diagnostic Profile' that includes a map of 'exclusion zones' and a summary explaining how 1920s policies (like the 1924 Immigration Act or Jim Crow laws) weakened this group’s economic safety net.Alignment
How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with USHG 7.1.1 (explaining tensions of the 1920s like the Harlem Renaissance, NAACP strategy, and nativism) and 7.1.2 (social and economic toll of the Depression). It requires students to connect pre-existing systemic issues to the specific vulnerabilities of groups during the 1930s.The Exclusion Audit: Uncovering the Redacted Needs
In this activity, students audit an actual New Deal program (such as the AAA, Social Security Act, or WPA) to identify its 'redacted' or missing elements. Students will use historical data to see who actually received aid and who was excluded due to policy loopholes (e.g., the exclusion of domestic and agricultural workers from Social Security). To deepen their analysis, students will draw parallels between these historical exclusions and modern-day policy challenges, such as the lack of traditional benefits for 'gig economy' workers or the 'digital divide' in contemporary relief efforts. This 'audit' provides the evidence-based justification for their own 'Forgotten Blueprint.'Steps
Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.Final Product
What students will submit as the final product of the activityAn 'Exclusion Audit Report' featuring: 1) A data visualization (chart or graph) showing the historical gap between those who needed aid and those who received it; 2) A written critique of the 1930s policy's limitations; and 3) A 'Modern Parallel' sidebar that compares a 1930s exclusion to a specific economic or social gap in today’s society.Alignment
How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with USHG 7.1.3 (evaluating FDR’s policies and the changing role of government) and CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.7 (integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis). By drawing parallels to modern policy gaps—such as the gig economy or contemporary healthcare access—students demonstrate a higher-level understanding of how legislative design continues to shape social equity.The Recovered Mandate: Crafting the Missing Blueprint
This is the capstone activity where students act as 'Historical Policy Consultants.' Using the data and context gathered in the previous two activities, students will draft a formal proposal for a 'forgotten' New Deal program. This program must provide immediate Relief, long-term Recovery, and systemic Reform specifically for their chosen group. The blueprint must be written in the style of 1930s legislation but designed with modern equity in mind.Steps
Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.Final Product
What students will submit as the final product of the activityThe 'People’s Blueprint': A formal, multi-page policy proposal that includes a preamble (the 'Why'), specific legislative articles (the 'What'), and a budget/implementation plan (the 'How').Alignment
How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with the core of USHG 7.1.3 (addressing the needs of workers, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, etc.) and CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.1 (citing textual evidence). It requires a synthesis of 'Relief, Recovery, and Reform'—the central framework of the New Deal era.Rubric & Reflection
Portfolio Rubric
Grading criteria for assessing the overall project portfolioThe People's Blueprint: New New Deal Rubric
Historical Analysis and Evaluation
Focuses on the student's ability to investigate historical causes, evaluate existing policies, and understand the long-term impact of systemic exclusion.Historical Contextualization & Pre-existing Conditions (USHG 7.1.1 & 7.1.2)
Evaluates the student's ability to analyze how the social, cultural, and political tensions of the 1920s (e.g., nativism, segregation) created systemic vulnerabilities for marginalized groups entering the Great Depression.
Exemplary
4 PointsProvides a sophisticated analysis of 1920s tensions, drawing insightful connections between specific policies (e.g., 1924 Immigration Act) and the systemic disenfranchisement of the chosen group. The Diagnostic Profile is comprehensive and nuanced.
Proficient
3 PointsProvides a thorough analysis of 1920s tensions and explains how they contributed to the group's economic vulnerability. The Diagnostic Profile clearly identifies pre-existing conditions using historical evidence.
Developing
2 PointsIdentifies 1920s tensions and mentions their impact on the chosen group, but the connection to 1930s vulnerability is inconsistent or lacks depth. Diagnostic Profile is partially complete.
Beginning
1 PointsLists historical events from the 1920s with little to no connection to the group's socio-economic status. Diagnostic Profile is incomplete or shows significant misunderstandings.
Policy Audit & Historical Continuity (USHG 7.1.3 & RH 9-10.7)
Assesses the student's ability to audit a specific New Deal program (AAA, SSA, etc.) to identify policy loopholes and exclusions, while drawing relevant parallels to modern-day economic gaps.
Exemplary
4 PointsSynthesizes complex historical data and primary sources to uncover subtle policy exclusions. The modern parallel (e.g., gig economy) is exceptionally well-articulated, demonstrating a deep understanding of historical continuity.
Proficient
3 PointsEffectively audits a New Deal program and identifies clear exclusions using data and primary sources. Includes a logical modern parallel that illustrates a contemporary social safety net gap.
Developing
2 PointsAudits a New Deal program and identifies basic exclusions, but the use of data is limited. The modern parallel is present but may be superficial or lack a clear connection to the historical context.
Beginning
1 PointsStruggles to identify specific exclusions in New Deal legislation. Modern parallels are absent or irrelevant. Evidence from primary/secondary sources is missing.
Legislative Design and Synthesis
Focuses on the creation of the final product, the synthesis of research into policy, and the use of evidence to support the proposal.Programmatic Design: Relief, Recovery, & Reform (USHG 7.1.3)
Evaluates the design of the 'Forgotten Blueprint' based on the three pillars of the New Deal: Relief (direct aid), Recovery (jobs), and Reform (legal change).
Exemplary
4 PointsDesigns an innovative and equitable program that seamlessly integrates all Three Pillars. The 'Mechanism of Action' is highly realistic for the 1930s while successfully addressing modern equity standards.
Proficient
3 PointsDesigns a solid program that includes distinct Relief, Recovery, and Reform actions. The proposal addresses the specific needs of the marginalized group and explains how the program would be implemented.
Developing
2 PointsProposes a program that addresses some needs, but the 'Three Pillars' are not clearly defined or lack feasibility. The implementation plan is vague or misses the target group's primary crisis.
Beginning
1 PointsProgram design is incomplete, missing one or more pillars (Relief, Recovery, or Reform). The proposal does not align with the historical needs of the chosen marginalized group.
Evidence-Based Argumentation (CCSS RH 9-10.1)
Measures the student's ability to use specific textual evidence from primary and secondary sources to justify their proposed legislation and demonstrate historical accuracy.
Exemplary
4 PointsCites a wide range of diverse primary and secondary sources with exceptional precision. Uses evidence not just to support facts, but to build a compelling, multi-layered historical argument.
Proficient
3 PointsCites specific textual evidence from at least two primary sources and relevant secondary research to support the program's necessity. Evidence is used accurately to justify policy decisions.
Developing
2 PointsUses some historical evidence to support the proposal, but citations may be general or lack specific connection to the legislative claims. Relies more on opinion than historical data.
Beginning
1 PointsProvides little to no textual evidence. Assertions about the need for the program are unsupported by historical facts or documents.
Professional Communication and Persona
Focuses on the presentation, tone, and overall quality of the final portfolio deliverable.Consultant Persona & Communication Quality
Evaluates the student's ability to adopt the persona of a 'Historical Policy Consultant' and present their findings in a professional, era-appropriate, and persuasive format.
Exemplary
4 PointsThe final 'People’s Blueprint' is professionally formatted, using sophisticated legislative language and a compelling 'Consultant' persona. The persuasive cover letter is masterful and era-appropriate.
Proficient
3 PointsThe final proposal is clear, organized, and maintains a consistent persona. The document follows the requested format (Preamble, Articles, Budget) and uses persuasive language effectively.
Developing
2 PointsThe proposal is organized but may lack the professional tone of a policy consultant. Some sections of the blueprint (Why, What, How) are underdeveloped or missing.
Beginning
1 PointsThe final product is disorganized, lacks a clear persona, or fails to follow the format of a policy proposal. Communication is unclear or unpersuasive.