Lesson Plan: Who’s Responsible? Personal vs. Social Responsibility in Addressing Social Problems

Subject Area: Mathematics  

Grade Level: High School    

Lesson Length: Flexible, designed as a 5-day sequence, but could be adapted for a longer inquiry 

Objectives/Goals 

By the end of this sequence, students will: 

1. Critically analyze messaging from the MSI Blue Paradox exhibit and identify how responsibility for systemic problems is framed. 

2. Investigate lived experiences of being blamed or held individually responsible for collective problems in their community or school. 

3. Apply mathematics and data literacy to reveal misallocated responsibility (e.g., pollution by corporations vs. household waste). 

4. Develop collective responses that reframe responsibility and propose systemic solutions, affirming students’ cultural and community identities. 

5. Strengthen self-efficacy by conducting authentic inquiry and seeing themselves as capable of academic and civic contributions. 

6. Practice sociocultural consciousness by connecting data analysis with critiques of power, inequality, and structural injustice. 

Standards Alignment 

CCSS Mathematics (applicable strands): 

• CCSS.MATH.PRACTICE.MP4: Model with mathematics (students interpret and contextualize data about pollution, violence, or social issues). 

• CCSS.MATH.PRACTICE.MP3: Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others (analyze exhibit messaging and formulate counter-arguments). 

CCSS ELA/Literacy (in connection with English class): 

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.8: Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal texts, including the premises, purposes, and arguments. 

C3 Framework for Social Studies (in connection with Civics): 

• D4.7.9-12: Assess options for individual and collective action to address local, regional, and global problems. 

Enhancements Using CAST/UDL Resources 

• Multiple Means of Representation: Provide exhibit excerpts in text, audio, and translated formats (Spanish, Arabic, Somali). Use visuals (graphs, infographics) to scaffold abstract data. 

• Multiple Means of Action/Expression: Students can show understanding via writing, oral storytelling, skits, posters, or digital media. 

• Multiple Means of Engagement: Provide choice in topics (environmental justice, policing, school discipline, housing) so relevance aligns with community experiences. 

  
  

Embedding the Three Frameworks  

• Identity: Students’ cultural and community experiences are honored in surveys, examples, and projects. Curriculum includes histories of Mexican, Somali, and Palestinian struggles against scapegoating.  

• Self-Efficacy: Lesson builds mastery experiences (data analysis, research design), offers models (stories of youth-led movements), and celebrates incremental success to strengthen belief in academic agency. 

• Sociocultural Consciousness: Each activity explicitly contrasts individual vs. systemic responsibility, teaching students to critique power and envision collective solutions. 

Modifications for Diverse Learners 

• Mexican Immigrant Students: Provide Spanish-language supports; integrate Chicano history and Chicago labor activism to validate identity; attend to deportation trauma with safe space protocols. 

• Somali Immigrant Students: Ensure prayer accommodations, address government-organized anti-muslim hysteria explicitly in discussions, offer Somali/English bilingual scaffolds, and include refugee perspectives in curriculum. 

• Palestinian Immigrant Students: Incorporate Middle Eastern and Palestinian narratives of dispossession and resilience; use Arabic language support where needed; create space for political identity expression without fear. 

• General EL Supports: Sentence frames, bilingual glossaries, visual data representations, peer-to-peer language scaffolding. 

Lesson Sequence 

Day 1: Framing the Question: Ideology and Responsibility 

1. Hook: Critique the Exhibit (10 min) 

• Teacher move: Begin with Blue Paradox Canva presentation. Present the exhibit as a case study of greenwashing: a corporation (SC Johnson) sponsors a museum exhibit that shifts responsibility for plastic waste onto consumers. 

• Access supports: Provide printed or digital transcripts of 1–2 slides in Spanish, Arabic, Somali. 

• Prompt for students: “What message is this exhibit trying to send about who is responsible for pollution?” 

2. Guided Discussion: Unpacking Responsibility (15 min) 

• HOT Question: “Who does this messaging say is responsible for plastic pollution? Who benefits from framing it this way?” 

• Dialectical framing: Push students to recognize the contradiction: corporations create plastics → corporations blame consumers → corporations profit. 

• Scaffolds: Provide sentence starters: 

• “The exhibit blames ___ for ___.” 

• “This benefits ___ because ___.” 

• Chart responses on the board, highlighting emerging themes: scapegoating, profit, invisibility of power 

3. Group Activity: Scapegoating in Our Lives (20 min) 

• Setup: Students work in small groups to brainstorm examples where individuals are blamed for systemic problems. Examples to seed if needed: 

• Students suspended for “misbehavior” vs. racialized discipline policies. 

• Immigrants blamed for job loss vs. corporations outsourcing labor. 

• “Bad neighborhoods” blamed for crime vs. state disinvestment. 

• Families blamed for poverty vs. systemic wage inequality. 

• Task: Each group generates a list of 2–3 examples. They write them on chart paper or Jamboard. 

• Share out: Groups report one example; teacher maps them onto categories (school, community, global). 

4. Reflection: Personal Connection (5 min) 

• Quick write: “One example where I’ve seen someone blamed for a bigger problem is…” 

• Optional share with partner or whole class. 

• Teacher closes with framing: “Tomorrow we’ll look at the data to see how responsibility is really distributed — and whether the narratives we hear match reality.” 

Day 1 Teacher Notes 

• Identity lens: Validates students’ lived knowledge of scapegoating (e.g., immigrant youth blamed for systemic inequities). 

• Self-efficacy lens: Shows students they already have analytical skills to critique ideology. 

• Sociocultural consciousness: Introduces responsibility as a structural question, not just individual. 

Formative Assessment for Day 1 

• Collect quick writes. 

• Look for evidence that students can (1) identify who is blamed, (2) recognize the gap between cause and blame, and (3) connect to personal/community examples. 

Framework Lens: 

• Identity: Validates students’ lived recognition of scapegoating. 

• Sociocultural Consciousness: Introduces concept of ideology as misallocation of blame. 

Day 2: Investigating Data and Power: Exposing Contradictions

 

• Mini-Lesson (15 min): Presenting Structural Data and Contradictions 

• Opening Framing (2 min)  Begin by reminding students of Day 1’s question: “Who is blamed? Who is responsible?”  Tell them: today we will put “blame narratives” to the test using real data. 

• Data Presentation (8 min) 

• Show a slide/chart: Top corporate plastic polluters: present the brand audit percentages (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, etc.). 

• Show a slide/chart: Top producers of single-use plastics: the 20 companies responsible for over half the waste. 

• Suggest the need for a military emissions vs. household emissions report, leaving a blank placeholder to fill. 

• Show CPS discipline visuals: pie charts or bar graphs showing suspension share by race (e.g., Black students 58 % of suspensions, though they are 36 % of students). 

• After each slide, pause and pose a very brief reflective question: “Does this match what we hear in media? What surprises you?” 

• Model Contradiction Thinking (5 min)  Walk the students through one example: 

• Exhibit says “households generate plastic waste; consumers must change.” 

• But data show that a handful of corporations generate giant proportions of waste. 

• That is a contradiction between ideology and material reality. 

• Use this to introduce the idea: some actors have structural power to make systemic change; many others are scapegoats. 

Group Activity (25 min): Data Meets Narrative 

• Task: In small groups, students receive 2–3 data cards/slides (corporate plastic, CPS discipline, etc.) plus printed media or school narratives (e.g., a school memo blaming student misbehavior, an ad about “reduce your plastic footprint”). 

• Students compare: 

• What does the data show about who produces harm or uses power? 

• What does the narrative say about who is blamed? 

• Where are the mismatches or gaps? 

• Each group constructs a bar graph or pie chart (scaffolded) showing misallocated responsibility (e.g., corporations vs households, school system vs students). 

Scaffolds / Supports: 

• Provide bilingual sentence frames: 

• “The data show that ___ is responsible for ___, yet the narrative blames ___.” 

• “One pattern I notice is that ___ is shifted to those with less power.” 

• Provide partially completed graph templates. 

• Circulate and guide groups in interpreting scales, axis labels, data mapping. 

HOT Question & Whole-Class Debrief (10 min): Unearthing Patterns of Power 

• Ask: “What patterns do you notice between who causes harm (according to the data) and who is blamed (in the narratives)?” 

• Follow-up probes: 

• “Why might the narratives shift blame onto individuals or students rather than powerful institutions?” 

• “What does that tell us about power, control, and ideology?” 

• As students respond, the teacher charts key themes: scapegoating, invisibility of power, narrative diversion, structural accountability. 

Formative Assessment 

• Each group hands in (or submits digital) their graph + a 2–3 sentence caption: “This graph shows ___ is blamed vs. ___. That difference suggests ___ about power in this issue.” 

• Teacher reviews for clarity of interpretation, alignment with data, and depth of critique 

Tips for Implementation & Teacher Moves 

• Preload definitions: Before showing data, ensure students grasp key terms like “corporation,” “production,” “institutional power,” “structural responsibility.” 

• Be explicit about ideology: Use language like “this narrative is ideological. It helps shift accountability away from powerful actors.” 

• Encourage dialectical thinking: Push students to see contradictions: narratives say one thing, data say another; how do these tensions open space for critique? 

• Ground in students’ lives: When interpreting CPS discipline data, connect to their observations or school experience: “Does this surprise you? Does this align with what you see in our school?” 

• Leave space: This lesson will surface discomfort. Make room for students to question, push back, and raise concerns (especially those who may feel implicated). 

Day 3: Community Inquiry: Culture as Collective Experience 

Objective for the Day 

• Students will design and begin carrying out a bilingual survey or focus group project. 

• Students will generate data on experiences of misplaced blame and structural responsibility within their communities. 

• Students will practice ethical, collective research methods that position them as producers of knowledge. 

1. Opening Discussion: Why Study Ourselves? (10 min) 

• Teacher move: Remind students of Days 1–2: “We critiqued the Blue Paradox and looked at data that showed a gap between blame and responsibility. Today we become researchers to study that same contradiction in our own communities.” 

• Prompt: “Why do you think it matters to study our own lives and communities rather than just reading someone else’s research?” 

• Dialectical point: Knowledge is often produced by elites who misrepresent working-class lives. By studying our own conditions, we create working-class science. 

2. Modeling Ethical Inquiry (15 min) 

• Mini-lesson: Teacher models the difference between extraction (taking stories for data without care) and collective knowledge production (research that benefits the community). 

• Show a bad example: e.g., a survey that blames students (“Why do kids misbehave in school?”). 

• Show a good example: e.g., a survey that highlights systemic responsibility (“How do school policies affect student opportunities?”). 

• Anchor principle: “We study our lives to expose contradictions and build solidarity, not to blame.” 

3. Group Design of Surveys/Focus Groups (25 min) 

• Students in groups of 3–4 brainstorm and draft 3–5 survey or interview questions. 

• Sample question stems: 

• “What social problems are you/your community blamed for?” 

• “Who do you think holds the real responsibility?” 

• “What solutions would you like to see?” 

• Bilingual supports: Encourage groups to draft questions in English and Spanish, Somali, or Arabic as needed. Provide dictionaries, glossaries, or peer translators. 

• Teacher circulates, prompting groups to refine questions to avoid bias and to center systemic responsibility. 

4. Peer Feedback and Revision (15 min) 

• Groups swap their draft surveys with another group. 

• Peers provide feedback using a simple checklist: 

• Are questions clear? 

• Do they avoid blame language? 

• Do they allow for open, honest responses? 

• Groups revise their questions accordingly. 

5. Reflection and Homework (5 min) 

• Quick write: “One question I want to ask my family or peers about responsibility is…” 

• Homework/Extension: Students administer their survey to at least 3–5 people (family, friends, neighbors) before the next lesson. Encourage bilingual data collection where possible. 

Framework Lens Integration 

• Identity (Erikson, 1968): Honors students’ cultural and linguistic practices — bilingual surveys affirm that their languages are legitimate tools of inquiry. 

• Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1997): Students experience themselves as researchers, gaining mastery in designing and conducting authentic inquiry. 

• Sociocultural Consciousness (Freire, 2000/1970): Students learn to critique how blame operates in their communities and connect lived experience to systemic structures of power. 

Formative Assessment 

• Collect group drafts of surveys/focus group guides. 

• Assess for clarity, inclusivity (are bilingual needs addressed?), and evidence that students are aiming questions at systemic responsibility, not individual blame. 

Day 4: Reframing the Narrative: From Blame to Collective Solutions 

Objective for the Day 

• Students will connect community inquiry findings to historical/global struggles. 

• Students will produce cultural artifacts (visual, performative, or textual) that expose misallocated responsibility and propose systemic, collective solutions. 

• Students will practice culture as praxis: knowledge linked directly to action and solidarity. 

1. Mini-Lesson: Collective Action as Cultural Production (10 min) 

• Teacher presentation: Provide short, vivid examples of movements where communities rejected blame and fought for systemic change: 

• 1968 Chicano student walkouts: youth reframed “failure” from individual to systemic (segregated schools, racist curricula). 

• Somali refugee organizing: communities reframed narratives of “terrorism” toward struggles for safety, dignity, and labor rights. 

• Palestinian youth activism: reframed narratives of “terror” as anti-colonial struggle for self-determination. 

• U.S. labor strikes: workers reframed “laziness” as collective resistance to exploitation. 

• Climate justice movements: reframed “personal carbon footprints” into systemic demands on corporations and governments. 

• Framing question to class: “What do all these struggles have in common? How do they move from blame to collective solutions?” 

• Anchor principle: Culture is not just representation, it’s what we make together in struggle. 

2. Group Work: Creating Counter-Narratives (35 min) 

• Task: In groups of 3–4, students use data + community responses (from Day 3) to create a cultural artifact that reveals the blame vs. responsibility gap. 

• Artifact options: 

• Infographic or poster (data + message) 

• Skit or spoken word performance (dramatizing the gap) 

• Zine or comic strip (student-designed media) 

• Digital media piece (short video, Canva slide deck, social post mockup) 

• Explicit instructions: Each artifact must: 

• Show how blame is misdirected (individuals, immigrants, students, families). 

• Show who holds real responsibility (corporations, state, institutions). 

• Propose or imagine a collective solution. 

• Supports: Provide templates (infographic skeletons, zine foldable, skit outline). Offer bilingual materials and translation supports so cultural identities are present in the final product. 

3. HOT Question & Debrief (10 min) 

• Pose to whole class: “If responsibility is collective, what does a real solution look like in your community?” 

• Encourage examples that move beyond charity/individual fixes toward systemic change: housing policy, school funding, corporate regulation, community organizing. 

• Chart student responses under two headings: “Blame” vs. “Collective Solutions.” 

Framework Lens 

• Identity: Students ground artifacts in their communities’ histories of struggle, affirming cultural identity as a source of knowledge and legitimacy. 

• Self-Efficacy: Students gain mastery by producing tangible counter-narratives; public sharing affirms their ability to critique and create. 

• Sociocultural Consciousness: Students enact praxis, linking critical knowledge to cultural production that challenges ideology and imagines alternatives. 

Formative Assessment 

• Teacher checks artifacts for three elements: 

• Clear depiction of “blame vs. responsibility.” 

• Explicit naming of systemic causes. 

• Vision of a collective solution. 

• Exit slip prompt: “How does our artifact show the difference between blame and responsibility?” 

Day 5: Sharing and Reflection: Collective Agency 

Objective for the Day 

• Students will publicly present artifacts that expose the contradiction between blame and responsibility. 

• Students will articulate systemic, collective solutions to social problems. 

• Students will close the unit by affirming their agency as cultural producers and knowledge creators. 

1. Class Conference: Presenting Counter-Narratives (40 min) 

• Setup the space: 

• Arrange the classroom like a symposium or gallery walk (tables around the room, projector ready for digital projects, chart paper for posters). 

• Teacher frames: “Today you are not just presenting to me — you are contributing to a tradition of counter-hegemonic culture. This is knowledge against the narratives of power.” 

• Presentation format options: 

• Option A – Symposium: Each group has 5 minutes to present their artifact, explain their data, and share their solution. Audience asks 1–2 questions. 

• Option B – Gallery Walk: Groups set up their artifacts. Class circulates, leaving written comments or sticky notes (“One strength of your artifact is ___” / “One question your artifact raises is ___”). 

• Option C – Mixed: Digital/skits presented to full class; posters/zines in gallery walk. 

• Teacher role: 

• Act as facilitator, validating student work as critical cultural production. 

• Draw connections between different group topics (e.g., policing and climate both shift blame away from systemic causes). 

2. Final Reflection: Naming the Myths and Shifting Power (15 min) 

• Individual quick write (5 min): 

• “What myth about responsibility did we expose this week?” 

• “What would it take to shift accountability onto those with real power?” 

• Whole-class debrief (10 min): 

• Students share out highlights. 

• Teacher charts responses under two headings: “Myths of Blame” and “Collective Accountability.” 

• Teacher close: “You’ve not only studied the contradiction between blame and responsibility, you’ve created tools for your community to fight it.” 

3. Optional Extension: Collective Resolution (10–20 min, if time/next class) 

• Students draft a Class Resolution that: 

• Names one or more myths of responsibility they reject. 

• States who should hold real accountability (e.g., corporations, state, institutions). 

• Proposes one collective solution they endorse as a class. 

• Resolution can be shared with school leadership, a community partner, or posted publicly in the classroom. 

Framework Lens 

• Identity (Erikson, 1968): Public recognition of students’ cultural and political knowledge validates their identities as legitimate knowers. 

• Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1997): Presenting, fielding questions, and seeing peers respond builds confidence in academic and civic competence. 

• Sociocultural Consciousness (Freire, 2000/1970; Kress et al., 2002): Students explicitly identify systemic targets of accountability, reinforcing critical awareness of power and the possibility of collective change. 

Summative Assessment 

• Artifacts (from Day 4): Assessed with a rubric (clarity, data use, systemic critique, proposed collective solution). 

• Final reflection: Checked for evidence of critical consciousness: identifying myths, naming systemic accountability, and proposing collective action. 

• Class resolution (if completed): A collective product assessed for synthesis and political clarity. 

Research-Based Design Features 

• Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Anchors inquiry in students’ lived experiences of blame and scapegoating. 

• Inquiry-Based Learning: Students formulate and pursue their own research questions. 

• Cooperative Learning: Group projects structured around shared accountability and solidarity. 

• Formative Assessment: Exit tickets, discussions, peer surveys guide ongoing feedback. 

• SEL Integration: Reflection and community-building help students process often heavy or personal content. 

Summary 

These lesson plans equip students to interrogate the corporate greenwashing at MSI’s Blue Paradox and the broader politics of responsibility. It shifts the project from an “exhibit follow-up” to a critical research experience where students uncover patterns of misallocated blame and envision collective solutions, grounding rigor in lived experience and humanistic inquiry. Furthermore, the lesson plan integrates CAST/UDL principles to make content accessible and engaging across modalities, embeds identity, self-efficacy, and sociocultural consciousness throughout, and explicitly modifies instruction for Mexican, Somali, and Palestinian students in CPS. The result is not only rigorous in the academic sense but also appropriate to the political and cultural realities of immigrant students living under systemic attack.