Please note that the sample items featured in this study guide are comprised of 150– to 300-word responses. These sample items and responses are meant to serve as practice materials for the FLEX Elementary Education assessments and do not represent the requested formatting for the FLEX assessments. To meet the requirements of any FLEX assessment, be sure to follow the instructions provided in the Series FLEX Handbook, prompts, and templates. For this FLEX assessment, responses should satisfy Competency 0008.
Recommendation for individuals using a screenreader: please set your punctuation settings to "most."
Descriptive Statement:
- Demonstrate knowledge of the basic principles and procedures used in social science research.
Sample Open-Response Item #1:
Use the information provided in the exhibits to complete the assignment that follows.
Compare the way the two sources approach the significance of the Magna Carta. Write a response of approximately 150– to 300 words in which you:
- determine and compare the main ideas or information presented in each source;
- analyze and compare the purpose and point of view of each source; and
- integrate information and cite evidence from the two sources to support your comparison.
Be sure to cite specific evidence from the sources in your response.
Exhibit: Source 1
Magna Carta, 1215
Context: Magna Carta Libertatum, commonly entitled Magna Carta, was a royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of England in June 1215. The excerpt is from a translation of the original 1215 edition of the Magna Carta from Latin into modern English.
(1) In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that the English church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III., before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs for ever.
(39) No freeman shall be taken or [and] imprisoned or disseised1 or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or [and] by the law of the land.
1footnote 1 disseised: dispossessed of property
Exhibit: Source 2
William Sharp McKechnie, Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction, 1914
Context: McKechnie was a historian at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
It is thus necessary briefly to narrate how the scattered Anglo-Saxon and Danish tribes and territories, originally unconnected, were slowly welded together and grew into England; how this fusion was made permanent by the growth of a strong centralized government which crushed out local independence, and threatened to become the most absolute despotism1 in Europe; how, finally, the Crown, because of the very plenitude of its power, called into play opposing forces, which set limits to royal prerogatives and laid the foundations of the reign of law. Such a survey of the early history of England reveals two leading movements; the establishment of a strong Monarchy able to bring order out of anarchy, and the establishment of safeguards to prevent this source of order from degenerating into an unrestrained tyranny, and so crushing out not merely anarchy but legitimate freedom as well. The later movement, in favour of liberty and the Great Charter, was the natural complement, and, in part, the consequence of the earlier movement in the direction of a strong government able to enforce peace. In historical sequence, order precedes freedom.
1footnote 1 despotism: the exercise of absolute power, especially in a cruel and oppressive way (Oxford dictionary)
Sample Strong Response to Open-Response Item #1
Show Sample Strong Response to Open-Response Item #1Hide Sample Strong Response to Open-Response Item #1
The sample response below reflects a strong knowledge and understanding of the subject matter.
The Magna Carta was a series of concessions that the English barons extracted from King John to curtail what they saw as his tyrannical behavior—crippling taxes, imprisonment of free men, and interference with church authority. In clause (1), John grants autonomy to the church, proclaiming that the church "shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate." Furthermore, the church will enjoy "freedom of elections" (presumably of clergy) without interference by the monarch. John's purpose in making this gesture was to ease the friction between church and state. Clause (39) guarantees that the barons cannot be imprisoned or have their land seized, but rather that they have the right to justice under the law and a trial by a jury of their peers.
While the barons saw the Magna Carta as providing protection from and replacement for King John's harmful, despotic form of government, William McKechnie appears to justify the necessity of a forceful ruler who can "bring order out of anarchy" as a natural step on the path to more representative government and individual rights. For England to eventually evolve into a constitutional monarchy (like the modern-day United Kingdom), it needed a tyrannical ruler to unite various tribes and territories into "a strong centralized government which crushed out local independence." In McKechnie's view, the rebellion of the barons as shown in the Magna Carta was thus the “natural complement” to John's despotic reign, as it prevented it from "degenerating into an unrestrained tyranny."
As both sources recognize, the Magna Carta enshrined into English law the concepts of limits on government, the rule of law, and a justice system that treats everyone fairly and equally. The Magna Carta led to the development of Parliament and even influenced the U.S. Constitution, which incorporated provisions for freedom of religion and a trial by a jury of one's peers.
Sample Open-Response Item #2:
Use the information provided in the exhibits to complete the assignment that follows.
Compare the way the two sources approach the issues separating Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. Write a response of approximately 150– to 300 words in which you:
- determine and compare the main ideas or information presented in each source;
- analyze and compare the purpose and point of view of each source; and
- integrate information and cite evidence from the two sources to support your comparison.
Be sure to cite specific evidence from the sources in your response.
Exhibit: Source 1
Abraham Lincoln, debate with Senator Stephen A. Douglas, 1858
Context: The contest for U.S. Senator from Illinois between Republican Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Stephen A. Douglas featured a series of seven public debates. This excerpt is from Abraham Lincoln at the final debate in Alton, Illinois, October 15, 1858.
The real issue in this controversy—the one pressing upon every mind—is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it.
On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery—by spreading it out and making it bigger?
Exhibit: Source 2
David Herbert Donald, Lincoln, 19951
Context: Donald was the author of two Pulitzer Prize-winning biographies. This excerpt is from his biography of Abraham Lincoln.
There was no evidence that any considerable number of voters were concerned that the Lincoln-Douglas debates concentrated almost exclusively on questions relating to slavery. The speakers could have discussed other serious issues of great importance to a country just emerging from the panic [recession] of 1857: regulation of banks, revision of tariffs, control of immigration, provision of homesteads for farmers, improvement of the lot of factory workers, and so on and on. But the debaters focused on none of these because they, and the Illinois voters, felt that the major concern of the country was the present condition and future prospects of the institution of slavery.
By concentrating on slavery, Lincoln and Douglas naturally exaggerated their differences. In a less combative arena they would have found much on which they could agree. For instance, both men disliked slavery; Lincoln openly deplored it and Douglas privately regretted its existence. … dot dot dot Neither man favored a slave code to protect slavery in the national territories, and neither would contemplate the extension of slavery into the free states. So numerous were their points of agreement, Lincoln candidly admitted at [the debate at] Jonesboro, that there was "very much in the principles that Judge Douglas has here enunciated that I most cordially approve, and over which I shall have no controversy with him."
Sample Strong Responses to Open-Response Item #2
Show First Sample Strong Response to Open-Response Item #2Hide First Sample Strong Response to Open-Response Item #2
Both sources address the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which, as biographer David Donald points out, focused "almost exclusively" on slavery. Although there were many issues the candidates "could have discussed," Illinois voters were most concerned about "the present condition and future prospects of the institution of slavery," particularly its spread into the western territories. In pursuing this focus, there was a risk that Lincoln and Douglas would come across as insufficiently distinct, for, as Donald shows, their positions on slavery were in many ways similar. Focusing on slavery forced the candidates to distinguish themselves from each other, and, though he provides no examples, Donald claims that Lincoln and Douglas therefore "naturally exaggerated their differences."
Donald's Lincoln is a savvy politician playing to and manipulating his audience. Read through this lens, Source #1 illustrates Lincoln's cleverness in packaging his message. To emphasize the difference between himself and Douglas, and also to reaffirm the voters' sense that slavery was a vitally important issue for the country, Lincoln does two things. First, he frames the debate in moral terms. The "real issue," he explains, comes down to a stark difference in the parties' attitudes toward slavery. One party, the Republicans, sees it "as a wrong," and the other, the Democrats, "does not look upon it as a wrong." Lincoln thus forces voters to choose between clear alternatives. Second, he frames slavery as an existential threat to the Union. He asks the voters to think not about the inalienable rights of enslaved Black Americans but about "Our own liberty and prosperity," meaning, presumably, the liberty and prosperity of white Illinois voters. Lincoln wants voters to see the expansion of slavery as a clear and present danger to their own well-being and to the existence of the nation, which it would in fact become with the outbreak of war three years later.
Show Second Sample Strong Response to Open-Response Item #2Hide Second Sample Strong Response to Open-Response Item #2
Lincoln's purpose in this excerpt is to make his position on slavery crystal clear—that it is "a moral, social, and political wrong." This is not only his position but the guiding principle of the recently founded Republican Party. Slavery must be gotten rid of, as it threatens "our liberty and prosperity" and the very "existence of this Union." This dramatic language, which would have resonated with a nation reeling from Bleeding Kansas and Dred Scott, helps Lincoln ramp up the tension, making it seem like the very lives of Illinois voters depend on Lincoln being elected Senator. By putting himself in the class that sees slavery as wrong, he puts Douglas in "another class that does not look upon it as a wrong." Asking a series of rhetorical questions (which he answers himself), he puts Douglas on the defensive: "What is it that we hold dear among us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution of slavery?" Douglas now has to explain why he would support expanding an institution that poses a mortal threat to the people of Illinois and to the nation.
David Donald provides a context for understanding Lincoln's stark rendering of the choice between himself and Douglas as a clear choice between "wrong" and "not wrong." Donald's purpose is to address the question "Why did the Lincoln-Douglas debates focus exclusively on slavery?" He concludes that the candidates simply gave the people what they wanted—that other concerns, such as banks, tariffs, and immigration paled in comparison to "the present condition and future prospects of slavery." Donald suggests that this was a risky strategy, because Lincoln and Douglas agreed on many points concerning slavery, making it hard for them to present themselves as clear alternatives. Thus, they "exaggerated their differences."
View Cart