Grade 12 · secular
This is a government course, but not the "name the three branches" kind your kid already sat through in middle school. It's about how power actually gets used, checked, and fought over, reading the Constitution and the arguments around it like legal documents instead of a list of facts, then testing that against real fights (should the president be able to send troops without Congress? does a state get to ignore a federal law it hates? does free speech have limits?). It ends with your kid picking a real, contested policy issue and writing the strongest possible case for BOTH sides, not picking a winner. The whole course is built to make them uncomfortable with easy answers on purpose.
The whole year, in plain English. Tap any unit to see every skill inside, nothing is hidden.
This is where all the vocabulary for the whole semester gets built: separation of powers, checks and balances, the three kinds of governmental power (enumerated, implied, reserved), and federalism. It's taught slowly and directly at first, using the actual constitutional text, because these are not ideas your kid already has a rough version of, they're genuinely new categories.
Given a short excerpt from Article I, II, or III of the Constitution, students classify the specific governmental action described as belonging exclusively to one branch or requiring interference from another branch.
Students recall the definitions of enumerated, implied, and reserved powers and identify which constitutional clause (Article I Section 8, Necessary and Proper Clause, Tenth Amendment) establishes each category.
Given a governmental power never discussed in class (e.g., regulating drone delivery airspace, or a state's authority over a new form of currency), students classify it as enumerated, implied, or reserved and justify the classification by citing the relevant constitutional clause.
Students explain why federalism creates a specific tension between national uniformity and state autonomy, using a contrasting pair of state-vs-federal conflict cases presented in class.
Given a novel, previously unseen state-federal policy conflict (e.g., a hypothetical dispute in a policy area not discussed in class), students determine which level of government has authority and construct an argument using the Supremacy Clause and Tenth Amendment.
Students compare an originalist and a living-constitutionalist reading of the same constitutional clause applied to a modern, previously undiscussed circumstance, and evaluate which reading is better supported by the clause's text and purpose.
Students summarize the core argument of a designated Federalist paper excerpt and a designated Anti-Federalist paper excerpt addressing the same design feature, stating each author's central claim in one sentence.
Using excerpts from the Constitution and one Federalist and one Anti-Federalist paper, students construct a written argument explaining how a specific design choice reflects a tradeoff the framers faced, connecting textual evidence from all three sources to that tradeoff.
Students recognize the terms popular sovereignty and constitutionalism when defined in context and match each to a corresponding phrase in the Preamble or a designated constitutional excerpt.
Your kid already knows the stories, Marbury v. Madison, presidents sending troops without a declared war, bills dying in Congress. This unit takes those stories, which they know as plot, and turns them into evidence: which branch actually won this fight, and what in the Constitution let them win it.
Given a case summary of Marbury v. Madison, state the holding and identify the constitutional silence it resolved (the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Court power to void a law).
Explain why judicial review is described as an implied rather than enumerated power, connecting the Unit 1 enumerated/implied distinction to the Court's reasoning in Marbury.
Given three named historical conflicts not covered in class discussion (e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, the Pentagon Papers case, a recent executive order challenged in court), identify which branch or mechanism ultimately resolved each and justify the resolution using constitutional text.
Compare the formal war-making powers assigned to Congress with the informal expansion of presidential war power in practice, using at least two named historical episodes.
Given the text of the War Powers Resolution and a timeline of a presidential military action, determine whether the statutory reporting and withdrawal requirements were followed.
Explain why the same formal presidential powers (commander-in-chief, executive order authority) produced markedly different levels of practical constraint under different Congresses and Courts, citing at least two examples.
Given a bill's actual path through Congress (committee, markup, floor vote, conference, veto or signature), sequence the stages correctly and identify where in the sequence the bill in question stalled.
Argue, using the enduring understanding that friction is a design feature, whether a specific instance of legislative gridlock (assigned by the teacher, not previously analyzed in class) represents the system functioning as designed or a failure of representation, and defend the position with constitutional and evidentiary support.
Explain why executive agencies exercise delegated authority rather than an independent constitutional grant of power, using the concept of delegation from Congress.
Given a new Supreme Court case description structurally similar to Marbury (a conflict between a statute and constitutional text with no prior ruling on point), predict how the doctrine of stare decisis would apply if a directly relevant precedent existed, and identify what would have to be shown to overturn that precedent.
This unit asks a harder question than 'what rights do we have', it asks who gets to decide the limits of a right, and why reasonable people and reasonable courts can land in different places. It leans hard on the federalism split from Unit 1 and judicial review from Unit 2.
Given a scenario, classify whether the situation primarily involves a civil liberty (protection from government action) or a civil right (protection of equal treatment), and justify borderline cases.
Explain why the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments until the process of selective incorporation, using at least two named incorporation cases and their dates relative to 14th Amendment ratification.
Given a government action that burdens a claimed right, determine which level of scrutiny (rational basis, intermediate, strict) a court would apply based on the classification and right involved, executing the decision-tree procedure taught in class.
Apply the scrutiny-level decision procedure to a new, previously unseen government-action scenario not used in worked examples, and justify the classification chosen.
Compare two Supreme Court cases with conflicting outcomes on a similar right and identify the specific doctrinal test or factual distinction that produced the differing holdings.
Given equal protection case excerpts, infer which classification (race, gender, or other) the government action targets and what level of scrutiny logically follows, without being told the classification directly.
Evaluate, for a current unresolved rights conflict not addressed by existing precedent, which institution (Congress, state legislature, or federal court) is best positioned to resolve it, and justify the choice using the federalism and judicial-review concepts from Units 1-2.
Construct a steelman argument for an institutional position the student personally disagrees with, regarding who should resolve a rights conflict, before arguing their own position.
Recall the definitions of due process (procedural and substantive) and equal protection as established in the 14th Amendment.
The last stretch turns from institutions and rights to people, how voting, interest groups, polling, and media coverage actually push on the structure your kid has spent the semester mapping. It ends with a real research project: build the strongest case for two sides of a genuinely contested policy issue.
Given a description of a sitting legislator's voting record and a hypothetical challenger's platform, identify at least three structural (non-performance) advantages the incumbent holds and explain how each lowers the challenger's odds regardless of either candidate's record.
Given a short case narrative in which a numerically small, well-funded interest group defeats a numerically larger, diffuse group on a specific bill, explain which resource (concentration, funding, single-issue focus, expertise) substituted for membership size and why collective-action problems make large diffuse groups harder to mobilize.
Given two same-event news leads or headlines that are both factually accurate, identify the specific word choice or fact-ordering decision that constitutes the framing difference and distinguish it from any factual claim in the text.
Recall the correct sequence of stages in the policy process (agenda-setting, proposal, legislative action, executive/agency action, evaluation) and name what kind of actor (citizen, interest group, media, legislator, agency) has the most leverage at each stage.
Given a two-poll comparison on the same issue with different question wording and different topline results, infer which specific wording difference most plausibly produced the different result, and state what claim the polls jointly do and do not support.
For a genuinely contested current policy issue not covered in class, determine which branch and level of government (federal/state, legislative/executive/judicial) has jurisdiction to decide it, citing the specific enumerated, implied, or reserved power or constitutional provision from Units 1-2 that grounds the claim.
Construct a policy brief presenting the strongest legitimate case for two contested positions on a self-selected current issue, such that a reader could not identify which position the student personally favors from the strength of argument alone.
Evaluate whether a peer's media source analysis has identified an actual framing choice versus merely restated a factual claim from the source, using the two-question peer protocol.
Recall the definitions of interest group, lobbying, public opinion, agenda-setting, framing, and incumbency accurately enough to use them correctly in original written analysis.
From the parent guide
This is a government course, but not the "name the three branches" kind your kid already sat through in middle school. It's about how power actually gets used, checked, and fought over, reading the Constitution and the arguments around it like legal documents instead of a list of facts, then testing that against real fights (should the president be able to send troops without Congress? does a state get to ignore a federal law it hates? does free speech have limits?). It ends with your kid picking a real, contested policy issue and writing the strongest possible case for BOTH sides, not picking a winner. The whole course is built to make them uncomfortable with easy answers on purpose.
Unit 1 · what to expect
This is where all the vocabulary for the whole semester gets built: separation of powers, checks and balances, the three kinds of governmental power (enumerated, implied, reserved), and federalism. It's taught slowly and directly at first, using the actual constitutional text, because these are not ideas your kid already has a rough version of, they're genuinely new categories.
The full guide covers all 4 units: where kids get stuck, what to say, and how to tell it's working. Included with the course.
Ready when you are
Free for 30 days · then $29/mo or $290/yr for the whole family · Cancel anytime, no questions asked.
Start your family's account