IB Diploma Programme: Global politics educator edition

Overview

Students read a short story about the Common Room, where a nonprofit board is considering paid evening rentals. The rentals would help close a $200 weekly budget gap. Students read the board agenda, a budget note and listening notes from evening users, then map who might miss the meeting. They write a note or a spoken comment with a budget question and an access question.

Before this case

Students should already be able to:

• define power and legitimacy

• map the actors in a local decision

• plan a respectful way to ask people for their views

Objectives

Students will be able to:

• frame a political issue about power over a shared resource

• map actors and the sources of their power accurately

• plan ethical, feasible engagement with the people involved

• use power and legitimacy precisely

Materials

• This chapter, one copy per student

Materials, continued

• Evidence A, B and C

• The actor map and the engagement plan template

• One real local example each student identifies, such as a library, recreation-center or community-board decision

The task in this edition

Task: Use the room decision to rehearse scoping an engagement project: define the political issue, map the actors and the power each holds, identify whose voices are missing and plan two ways to engage people directly. Then write a short proposal explaining how power and legitimacy shape the decision.

Students make: Engagement-project proposal, 500–700 words, with an actor map

Fit: partial. The decision raises the key concepts of power and legitimacy in a local setting and can model how to scope an engagement project, but it is a nonprofit’s internal budget choice with no clear link to the thematic studies, so use it only as engagement-project rehearsal.

Pacing

Opener (page 3): 6 min. Short on time: 5 min. Read What happened aloud. Skip the opening question.

Pacing, continued

Key terms (pages 4 and 5): 6 min. Short on time: 4 min. Read the key terms aloud. Skip Who is involved.

Look at the evidence (page 9): 12 min. Short on time: 12 min.

Look at the evidence (page 10): 6 min. Short on time: 6 min.

Key idea (pages 11 and 12): 12 min. Short on time: 10 min. Skip the code of ethics card.

Sort the evidence (page 13): 10 min. Short on time: 8 min. Do the Option B row together.

Practice (page 14): 6 min. Short on time: skip.

Your task (pages 15 and 16): 15 min. Short on time: 15 min.

Your draft (page 17): 30 min. Short on time: 30 min.

Check your work (pages 18 and 19): 10 min. Short on time: 4 min. Skip the rubric boxes.

Questions to discuss (pages 20 and 21): 10 min. Short on time: 6 min. Discuss question 4 only.

Talk about this case at home (page 22): at home.

Periods: full chapter 123 minutes; one period 100 minutes.

Standards

Global politics — key concepts: power and legitimacy Uses the course’s key concepts of power and legitimacy to examine a political issue. In this case: Students analyze who holds decision-making power over a shared space and who bears the costs.

Language A: language and literature — Time and space An area of exploration in the course: how the time and place a text comes from, and is read in, shape its meaning. In this case: Students consider how the same room means different things to people in different circumstances.

Codes of ethics

• ASPA Code of Ethics: 5. Fully Inform and Advise.

• ASPA Code of Ethics: 3. Promote democratic participation.

• ALA Code of Ethics: Principle 1 (of 9)

Heat map

Opener (page 3): Low

Key terms (pages 4 and 5): Low

Look at the evidence (page 9): Low

Look at the evidence (page 10): Low

Key idea (pages 11 and 12): Low

Sort the evidence (page 13): Medium

Practice (page 14): Low

Heat map, continued

Check your work (pages 18 and 19): Low

Try it at your school

Find the room where your community’s decisions happen.

• With a trusted adult, look up an upcoming library board, school committee or rec-center meeting agenda

• Identify which body decides and whether the item is for discussion or a vote

• Write one question about who uses the space and when

• Check whether written comments are accepted if you can’t attend

Who to ask: Library staff, a rec-center manager, the school board clerk or a student council advisor

Safety: Go to public meetings with a trusted adult. Check whether comments and names become part of the public record before submitting.

Sources

• New York City Council, “NYC Council, Library Leaders, and New Yorkers Celebrate Library Budget Restorations to Restore Full Service, as Branches Reopen and Reinstate Services on Sunday for First Time in Months,” July 14, 2024

Sources, continued

• NYC Mayor’s Office, “Mayor Adams Celebrates $58.3 Million Investment in City’s Three Library Systems,” July 1, 2024

• NY1, “Public libraries over the next two weeks to begin closing on Sundays,” November 17, 2023

• PIX11 News, “Last Sunday service held at Brooklyn Public Library,” December 17, 2023

• Carol Bacchi, “What’s the problem represented to be?,” No date listed

• NYC.gov, Brooklyn Community Board 13, “About community boards,” No date listed

• Design Council, “The Double Diamond,” No date listed

Content note

This case explains general rules. It is not legal advice for your situation.

Overview

Students read a short story in which Gia’s bank deposit is smaller than she expected after 18 hours of café shifts. They read her pay statement and shift log, label gross pay, FICA, withholding and net pay, and find out why three hours are missing. They then write a private question to payroll about any line they cannot explain.

Before this case

Students should already be able to:

• explain the difference between a declaration and a law

• use the core concepts of sovereignty, legitimacy and interdependence

• evaluate an argument from more than one perspective

Objectives

Students will be able to:

• explain how the United States funds Social Security and Medicare through payroll taxes

• distinguish a right declared internationally from a program a state funds

Objectives, continued

• evaluate whether social insurance is best understood as a right or as a national policy choice

• use sovereignty, legitimacy and interdependence precisely

Materials

• This chapter, one copy per student

• Evidence A

• The text of Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• One source on social insurance in another country, chosen by you

The task in this edition

Task: Compare how Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights frames social security with how the United States funds Social Security and Medicare through payroll taxes. Then evaluate one argument about whether social insurance is best understood as a right or as a national policy choice.

Students make: Analytical response, 700–900 words

Fit: partial. Social insurance connects to economic and social rights and to questions of development, but the case is a single domestic pay statement, so students must bring in comparative and international material before it becomes global politics.

Pacing

Opener (page 23): 5 min. Short on time: 3 min. Read What happened aloud.

Key terms (pages 24 and 25): 5 min. Short on time: 3 min. Read the key terms aloud. Skip Who is involved.

Look at the evidence (pages 29 and 30): 8 min. Short on time: 6 min. Students fill in the Evidence A boxes only.

Key idea (pages 31 and 32): 10 min. Short on time: 8 min. Skip In the news.

Sort the evidence (page 33): 6 min. Short on time: skip.

Practice (page 34): 5 min. Short on time: skip.

Your task (pages 35 and 36): 25 min. Short on time: 25 min.

Your draft (page 37): 45 min. Short on time: 45 min.

Check your work (pages 38 and 39): 8 min. Short on time: 5 min. Students answer the Check your work questions. Give practice feedback yourself.

Questions to discuss (pages 40 and 41): 12 min. Short on time: 5 min. Use question 2 only.

Talk about this case at home (page 42): at home.

Periods: full chapter 129 minutes; one period 100 minutes.

Standards

Global politics — key concepts: legitimacy and interdependence; thematic study: Rights and justice Uses the course’s key concepts of legitimacy and interdependence within its Rights and justice thematic study to examine a political issue. In this case: Students examine social insurance as a way societies share risk.

Theory of Knowledge — Knowledge and the knower (core theme) The core theme of the course: how each person’s perspective shapes what they know. In this case: Students ask why a single number, the deposit, feels like the whole truth.

Codes of ethics

• PayrollOrg Code of Ethics: Item 2

• PayrollOrg Code of Ethics: Item 5

• IABC Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators: “I communicate accurate information”

Heat map

Opener (page 23): Low

Key terms (pages 24 and 25): Low

Look at the evidence (pages 29 and 30): Low

Key idea (pages 31 and 32): Low

Sort the evidence (page 33): Low

Practice (page 34): Medium

Heat map, continued

Your task (pages 35 and 36): Medium

Check your work (pages 38 and 39): Low

Try it at your school

Know how to read your first pay statement.

• Before a first job, ask how and when you’ll be paid and where to see your pay statement

• Keep your own log of hours and shifts

• Look up your state’s minimum wage on its labor department site

• Bring pay questions to a supervisor or payroll, in writing

Who to ask: School counselor or career office, a work-permit issuing officer if your state uses them, your supervisor or payroll office

Safety: Never post pay statements, Social Security numbers or bank details online. Workers under 18 have limits on hours and jobs; ask a trusted adult to help check them.

Sources

• Internal Revenue Service, “Understanding Taxes: gross pay and net pay,” No date listed

• Internal Revenue Service, “Understanding employment taxes,” No date listed

Sources, continued

• Internal Revenue Service, “Tax Withholding Estimator,” No date listed

• TBS, “Rachel Gets Her First Paycheck from Central Perk,” No date listed

Overview

Students read a short story in which a group chat claims that one parent’s complaint got a novel “banned” from Anika’s school library. They compare the claim with the district’s reconsideration notice, the committee input form and the ALA’s example procedure. They map where the novel is in the review. They then write input to the review committee that is tied to the selection criteria.

Before this case

Students should already be able to:

• identify the actors in a political issue and their sources of power

• explain legitimacy as a core concept

• plan how to talk with people who disagree

Objectives

Students will be able to:

• frame a political issue about authority over shared public resources

• map actors on different sides fairly

• plan ethical engagement across disagreement

• use power, legitimacy and rights precisely

Materials

• This chapter, one copy per student

• Evidence A and B

Materials, continued

• The text of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and one state or district policy

• An actor map template

The task in this edition

Task: Rehearse an engagement project on library governance: frame the political issue (who decides what stays on public school shelves, and by what process), map the actors (families on different sides, librarians, the school board, the state legislature, students, advocacy groups), plan ethical engagement with people who disagree with each other, and compare the local process with the freedom to seek and receive information in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Students make: Engagement-project proposal, 600–800 words, with an actor map

Fit: partial. Who holds legitimate authority over a public school library raises legitimacy, rights and liberty, and book challenges are a live local political issue suited to engagement-project rehearsal, but the case is one U.S. district process and needs comparative or international material to reach the thematic studies.

Pacing

Opener (page 43): 5 min. Short on time: 3 min. Read What happened aloud.

Key terms (pages 44 and 45): 5 min. Short on time: 3 min. Read the key terms aloud. Skip Who is involved.

Look at the evidence (pages 49 and 50): 8 min. Short on time: 6 min. Students fill in the What it shows boxes only.

Key idea (pages 51 and 52): 10 min. Short on time: 8 min. Skip In the news.

Sort the evidence (page 53): 10 min. Short on time: 5 min. Do the deciders column only.

Practice (page 54): 5 min. Short on time: skip.

Your task (pages 55 and 56): 25 min. Short on time: 25 min.

Your draft (page 57): 45 min. Short on time: 40 min. Students draft the framing and actor sections in class and finish at home.

Check your work (pages 58 and 59): 8 min. Short on time: 5 min. Students answer the Check your work questions. Give practice feedback yourself.

Questions to discuss (pages 60 and 61): 12 min. Short on time: 5 min. Use question 2 only.

Talk about this case at home (page 62): at home.

Periods: full chapter 133 minutes; one period 100 minutes.

Standards

Language A: language and literature — Readers, writers and texts An area of exploration in the course: how readers, writers and texts interact to make meaning. In this case: Students examine how different readers find different meanings in the same book.

Global politics — key concepts: power and legitimacy; thematic study: Rights and justice Uses the course’s key concepts of power and legitimacy within its Rights and justice thematic study to examine a political issue. In this case: Students analyze who holds legitimate authority over school library collections.

Codes of ethics

• ALA Code of Ethics: Principle 2 (of 9)

• Code of Ethics of the Education Profession: Principle I: Commitment to the Student, item 2

• Credo for Ethical Communication: “We strive to understand and respect other communicators' intent…” (one of nine unnumbered principles)

Heat map

Opener (page 43): Medium

Key terms (pages 44 and 45): Low

Look at the evidence (pages 49 and 50): Low

Heat map, continued

Key idea (pages 51 and 52): Medium

Sort the evidence (page 53): Medium

Practice (page 54): Low

Your task (pages 55 and 56): Medium

Check your work (pages 58 and 59): Low

Try it at your school

Find your library’s reconsideration policy.

• Ask your school librarian how book challenges are handled

• Find the written policy on the district website

• Learn whether students can give input during a review

• If a review is happening, read the whole book before commenting

Who to ask: School librarian or media specialist, public library staff, school board clerk

Safety: Don’t post names of people who filed a challenge or who spoke at a meeting. Disagree with ideas, not individuals.

Sources

• Penguin, “Matilda by Roald Dahl: authorized extract,” No date listed

Sources, continued

• American Library Association, “Selection and Reconsideration Policy Toolkit: formal reconsideration,” No date listed

• American Library Association, “Selection and Reconsideration Policy Toolkit: selection criteria,” No date listed

Content note

This case explains general rules. It is not legal advice for your situation.

Overview

Students read a story in which Dec, who turns 18 in October, looks past the headline race on his sample ballot. He finds a school board race, a city council race and a transit bond. They compare the ballot with a creator’s voter guide that mixes facts with picks, and they read Vote.gov’s guidance for people 18 and under. They then write a personal checklist of official sources for registration, deadlines and their own sample ballot.

Before this case

Students should already be able to:

• define power and legitimacy in the course’s terms

• map actors by their sources of power

• plan contact with an organization ethically

Objectives

Students will be able to:

• frame a nonpartisan political issue about youth participation in local elections

• map the actors and their sources of power accurately

• plan ethical, nonpartisan engagement with an election office or youth civic group

Objectives, continued

• use two definitions of legitimacy and plan a fair comparison with one other country

Materials

• This chapter, one copy per student

• Evidence A, B, C and D

• One source on local turnout and one official source on voting rules in another country

• An actor map and a nonpartisan engagement plan template

The task in this edition

Task: Rehearse an engagement project on youth participation in local elections: frame a nonpartisan political issue, such as why young people vote less in local contests, map the actors (election office, schools, parties, youth organizations, candidates), plan ethical, nonpartisan engagement with an election office or youth civic group, and analyze how turnout affects the legitimacy of local decisions, comparing voting age or registration in one other country.

Students make: Engagement-project proposal, 600–800 words, with an actor map

The task in this edition, continued

Fit: partial. Elections confer legitimacy, and low local turnout raises questions of power and participation that suit engagement-project rehearsal, but the case is a U.S. ballot-information task and needs comparative material to reach the thematic studies.

Pacing

Opener (page 63): 5 min. Short on time: 4 min. Students read What happened on their own.

Key terms (pages 64 and 65): 5 min. Short on time: 3 min. Read the key terms aloud. Skip Who is involved.

Look at the evidence (page 69): 8 min. Short on time: 7 min. Students fill in only the What it shows boxes.

Look at the evidence (page 70): 5 min. Short on time: 4 min. Read Evidence D aloud; skip its boxes.

Key idea (pages 71 and 72): 12 min. Short on time: 10 min. Skip In the news.

Sort the evidence (pages 73 and 74): 8 min. Short on time: 5 min. Complete the diagram only; skip the missing-perspective box.

Practice (page 75): 6 min. Short on time: skip.

Your task (pages 76 and 77): 25 min. Short on time: 25 min.

Pacing, continued

Your draft (page 78): 30 min. Short on time: 30 min.

Check your work (pages 79 and 80): 8 min. Short on time: 5 min. Skip the rubric self-score.

Questions to discuss (pages 81 and 82): 10 min. Short on time: 7 min. Discuss questions 3 and 4 only.

Talk about this case at home (page 83): at home.

Periods: full chapter 122 minutes; one period 100 minutes.

Standards

Global politics — key concepts: power and legitimacy Uses the course’s key concepts of power and legitimacy to examine a political issue. In this case: Students analyze how local elections confer authority.

Theory of Knowledge — Knowledge and politics (optional theme) An optional theme of the course: how political power and processes affect what counts as knowledge. In this case: Students ask how we know what a candidate or measure will do.

Codes of ethics

• SPJ Code of Ethics: Seek Truth and Report It

• RTDNA Code of Ethics: Opening statement (before the guiding principles)

Codes of ethics, continued

• Credo for Ethical Communication: “We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings…” (one of nine unnumbered principles)

Heat map

Opener (page 63): Low

Key terms (pages 64 and 65): Low

Look at the evidence (page 69): Low

Look at the evidence (page 70): Low

Key idea (pages 71 and 72): Low

Sort the evidence (pages 73 and 74): Medium

Practice (page 75): Low

Your task (pages 76 and 77): Medium

Your draft (page 78): Medium

Check your work (pages 79 and 80): Low

Try it at your school

Find your official election information.

• With a trusted adult, visit vote.gov and choose your state or territory

• Check eligibility, preregistration and registration rules for your age

• Find a sample ballot for your address and circle one local office

Try it at your school, continued

• Learn what that office does before researching candidates

Who to ask: Your county or local election office, a civics teacher, a school librarian

Safety: Never share your address, birthdate or voter information in group chats. Use official government sites (.gov) for registration.

Sources

• Vote.gov, “Your state or territory’s voting information,” No date listed

• Vote.gov, “Preparing to vote: age 18 and under,” No date listed

• USAGov, “Sample ballots and voter guides,” No date listed

• National Constitution Center, “The 26th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” No date listed

Content note

This case involves disability access on a city route. No student should share their own disability or health information, so keep the discussion on Sami’s trip.

This case explains general rules. It is not legal advice for your situation.

Overview

Students read a story in which construction blocks the curb ramp on Sami’s route to a city workshop, and the detour points to stairs. They examine the sign, the route map and the workshop flyer. They use the Department of Justice’s Title II guide to see which part of the ADA applies. They then audit the whole trip and write a message to the city’s ADA coordinator.

Before this case

Students should already be able to:

• define power, sovereignty and legitimacy in the course’s terms

• map actors by their sources of power

• plan contact with an organization ethically

Objectives

Students will be able to:

• frame a political issue about responsibility for accessible public routes

Objectives, continued

• map the actors and their sources of power accurately

• plan consent-based engagement that treats disabled residents as decision-makers

• compare the ADA with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at a general level

Materials

• This chapter, one copy per student

• Evidence A, B and C

• The Department of Justice page, the text of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and one local accessibility page

• An actor map and a consent-based engagement plan template

The task in this edition

Task: Rehearse an engagement project on accessibility where you live: frame a political issue about who is responsible for accessible public routes, map the actors (city departments, contractors, the ADA coordinator, disability advocacy groups, residents), plan consent-based engagement that treats disabled residents as decision-makers, and compare the ADA’s approach at a general level with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the United States has signed but not ratified.

Students make: Engagement-project proposal, 600–800 words, with an actor map

Fit: partial. Disability access raises rights, equality and the power of public bodies, and a local accessibility issue is a realistic engagement project, but the case is one domestic route and needs international and comparative material to reach the thematic studies.

Pacing

Opener (page 84): 4 min. Short on time: 3 min. Students read What happened on their own.

Key terms (pages 85 and 86): 5 min. Short on time: 3 min. Read the key terms aloud. Skip Who is involved.

Pacing, continued

Look at the evidence (page 90): 8 min. Short on time: 7 min. Students fill in only the What it shows boxes.

Look at the evidence (page 91): 4 min. Short on time: 3 min. Read the flyer aloud; skip its boxes.

Key idea (pages 92 and 93): 10 min. Short on time: 8 min. Skip In the news.

Sort the evidence (page 94): 8 min. Short on time: 6 min. Complete the diagram only; skip the missing-perspective box.

Practice (page 95): 5 min. Short on time: skip.

Your task (pages 96 and 97): 25 min. Short on time: 24 min. Map one actor together, then students finish the map.

Your draft (page 98): 35 min. Short on time: 34 min. Students finish the comparison paragraph at home.

Check your work (pages 99 and 100): 8 min. Short on time: 6 min. Skip the rubric self-score.

Questions to discuss (pages 101 and 102): 10 min. Short on time: 6 min. Discuss question 3 only.

Talk about this case at home (page 103): at home.

Periods: full chapter 122 minutes; one period 100 minutes.

Standards

Global politics — key concept: power; thematic study: Rights and justice Uses the course’s key concept of power within its Rights and justice thematic study to examine a political issue. In this case: Students analyze disability rights as claims on public institutions.

Theory of Knowledge — Knowledge and the knower (core theme) The core theme of the course: how each person’s perspective shapes what they know. In this case: Students ask whose experience counts as evidence about a city.

Codes of ethics

• ASPA Code of Ethics: 3. Promote democratic participation.

• NPPA Code of Ethics for Visual Journalists: Code of Ethics, standard 3

• ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions

Heat map

Opener (page 84): Medium

Key terms (pages 85 and 86): Low

Look at the evidence (page 90): Low

Look at the evidence (page 91): Low

Key idea (pages 92 and 93): Low

Sort the evidence (page 94): Medium

Practice (page 95): Medium

Heat map, continued

Your task (pages 96 and 97): Low

Your draft (page 98): Low

Check your work (pages 99 and 100): Low

Try it at your school

Find your city’s ADA contact.

• With a trusted adult, search your city’s website for “ADA coordinator” or “accessibility”

• Save how to report a blocked sidewalk or curb ramp (often 311 or a public works page)

• If you notice a barrier, note the location, date and time

• Ask the person affected what they want before reporting on their behalf

Who to ask: City ADA coordinator, 311 or public works, school transportation office for school routes

Safety: Don’t film or post people with disabilities without clear permission. Stay out of construction zones.

Sources

• HISTORY, “When the ‘Capitol Crawl’ Dramatized the Need for Americans with Disabilities Act,” July 24, 2020

Sources, continued

• Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities, “The Capitol Crawl,” No date listed

• U.S. Department of Justice, “The ADA and City Governments,” No date listed

Content note

This case explains general rules. It is not legal advice for your situation.

Overview

Students read a story in which Jordy and Gia work the same Saturday event. Jordy is paid $16.50 an hour, and Gia is paid $18.00. They compare the pay statements and the crew schedule, which lists Gia as shift lead, with federal pages on pay discrimination and on discussing wages. They then draft Jordy’s message to the supervisor asking how the rates were set.

Before this case

Students should already be able to:

• explain the difference between a stated right and a law that enforces it

• use power and legitimacy as analytical concepts

• evaluate a policy from more than one perspective

Objectives

Students will be able to:

• compare Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII

• analyze information as a source of power between employers and workers

Objectives, continued

• evaluate whether one pay-transparency law changes that balance

• explain why a widely recognized right can be hard for one worker to use

Materials

• This chapter, one copy per student

• The text of Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• The EEOC and NLRB pages

• One state or city pay-transparency law chosen with the educator

The task in this edition

Task: Compare the statement of equal pay for equal work in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with how U.S. federal law (the Equal Pay Act and Title VII) and one state or city pay-transparency law approach it. Then evaluate whether transparency laws change the balance of power between employers and workers like Jordy.

Students make: Analytical response, 700–900 words

The task in this edition, continued

Fit: partial. Equal pay for equal work is a recognized right in international instruments and a live political issue, but the case is one workplace question whose cause is unknown, so a Global Politics task must bring in comparative material and use the case only as an entry point.

Pacing

Opener (page 104): 4 min. Short on time: 4 min.

Key terms (pages 105 and 106): 4 min. Short on time: skip.

Look at the evidence (page 110): 6 min. Short on time: 6 min.

Look at the evidence (page 111): 3 min. Short on time: 3 min.

Key idea (pages 112 and 113): 10 min. Short on time: 8 min. Skip In the news.

Sort the evidence (page 114): 6 min. Short on time: 6 min.

Practice (page 115): 4 min. Short on time: skip.

Your task (pages 116 and 117): 20 min. Short on time: 20 min.

Your draft (page 118): 40 min. Short on time: 40 min.

Check your work (pages 119 and 120): 8 min. Short on time: 8 min.

Pacing, continued

Questions to discuss (pages 121 and 122): 10 min. Short on time: 5 min. Use question 4 only.

Talk about this case at home (page 123): at home.

Periods: full chapter 115 minutes; one period 100 minutes.

Standards

Global politics — thematic study: Rights and justice Uses the course’s Rights and justice thematic study to examine a political issue. In this case: Students analyze how law addresses unequal pay.

Theory of Knowledge — Knowledge and the knower (core theme) The core theme of the course: how each person’s perspective shapes what they know. In this case: Students ask what a worker can know about pay decisions from their position.

Codes of ethics

• SHRM Code of Ethics: Fairness and Justice

• SHRM Code of Ethics: Use of Information

• IABC Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators: “I protect confidential information”

Heat map

Opener (page 104): Medium

Key terms (pages 105 and 106): Low

Heat map, continued

Look at the evidence (page 110): Low

Look at the evidence (page 111): Low

Key idea (pages 112 and 113): Low

Sort the evidence (page 114): Low

Practice (page 115): Medium

Your task (pages 116 and 117): Low

Check your work (pages 119 and 120): Low

Try it at your school

Know how pay decisions are made where you work.

• Ask for your pay rate and how it’s set in writing when you start a job

• Keep your own record of hours and duties

• Talk with a trusted adult or counselor if something seems off

• Look up your state labor department’s pay-equity page

Who to ask: Supervisor or HR, school counselor, state labor department, the EEOC’s public information line

Safety: Don’t share coworkers’ pay information without their permission. Deadlines apply to formal complaints, so ask a qualified adviser early if you think there’s a legal issue.

Sources

• NPR, “The U.S. national women’s soccer team wins $24 million in equal pay settlement,” February 22, 2022

• NPR, “Federal Judge Dismisses U.S. Women’s Soccer Team’s Equal Pay Claim,” May 2, 2020

• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “Pay Discrimination,” No date listed

• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), “Your Right to Discuss Wages,” No date listed