ILNews

Fishers High School captures 4th place in national civics competition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Fishers High School team finished fourth in the We the People national competition, continuing Indiana’s streak of having teams place in the Top 10 among the groups representing all 50 states.

Held in Washington, D.C., the 27th Annual We the People National Finals brought together high school teams from across the country April 25 to 28. Fishers High School made its first appearance at nationals after the team finished first in the Indiana competition held in December.

During the national competition, students participate in simulated congressional hearings and answer questions about the U.S. Constitution before a panel of judges. The questions explore the students’ knowledge about the founding document and their ability to apply constitutional principles to current events and historical incidents.

Charles Dunlap, executive director of the Indiana Bar Foundation, praised the Fishers team, saying the students represented Indiana well. He also acknowledged the consistent performance of Hoosier students.

“Indiana’s tradition of having teams in the Top 10 is a testament to the depth of talent in our state and the quality of teachers in the program,” Dunlap said.

The Indiana Bar Foundation operates the We the People program in Indiana. Teachers, attorneys, and judges spend time each school year preparing the students for competition and additional volunteers quiz and grade the teams during the regional and state rounds.






 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT