After School: WHAT CHANGED?
Put it to the test
Use a new situation to see what you can explain, support and revise.
Caseload 4 — Put it to the test
Essential question: What counts as proof that something works, is allowed, or is legal?
The student-news story was pulled
New transfer scenario. Read the source set before answering. Do not assume that a familiar word such as “policy,” “law,” “ban,” “scholarship,” or “petition” tells you who has authority or what happened.
Source set
SOURCE A — Adviser email
NPW practice document. “Pause publication until we verify the quoted budget number and give the activities office a chance to respond. This is an editing hold, not a final ban.”
What it establishes: Shows the adviser’s stated reason and temporary status.
What it cannot establish: Does not establish whether every aspect of the hold is permitted under law or school policy.
SOURCE B — Student-media policy
NPW practice document. “Editors are responsible for accuracy. Corrections and source verification are required. Administrative prior review is limited to circumstances listed in district policy.”
What it establishes: Shows internal rules about accuracy and references a separate district policy.
What it cannot establish: Does not identify whether this situation falls within a listed circumstance.
SOURCE C — District policy excerpt
NPW practice document. “School-sponsored student media procedures must distinguish editorial fact-checking from administrative censorship and follow applicable state/federal law.”
What it establishes: Shows a district-level requirement to distinguish processes.
What it cannot establish: Does not decide the facts of this particular dispute.
SOURCE D — Reporter’s notes
NPW practice document. The quoted budget number came from a draft slide; the adopted budget document lists a different amount.
What it establishes: Shows a concrete accuracy problem in the draft story.
What it cannot establish: Does not settle every speech/press question about the hold.
Part A — Check
1. Which fact most directly supports a temporary accuracy hold?
A. The school dislikes criticism.
B. The draft used a number that differs from the adopted budget.
C. Students are young.
D. The office asked for praise.
2. What does Source A explicitly say the hold is not?
A. An editing step
B. A final ban
C. A request to verify
D. A chance to respond
3. Which source tells you that another district rule may matter?
A. A
B. B
C. C
D. D
4. Which conclusion is too broad?
A. The budget number needs checking.
B. The process should distinguish fact-checking from censorship.
C. Any pause in student publication is automatically illegal censorship.
D. The adopted budget is stronger evidence than a draft slide for the final amount.
5. What should the students do first to strengthen their position?
A. Correct/verify the budget number and document the reason for any continued hold
B. Delete all notes
C. Post accusations without the policy
D. Assume the adviser controls the law
Part B — Explain
Separate the accuracy problem from the authority/speech question. Use at least three sources and state what is still unknown.
Part C — Use it
Build a paper trail with four rows: draft number, adopted-budget number, adviser hold, governing policy. Then write a 100–150 word neutral status update that says what has been corrected and what process question remains.
Educator answer and scoring guidance
1. Correct answer: B. Source D identifies a verification problem.
2. Correct answer: B. The email calls it an editing hold, not a final ban.
3. Correct answer: B. Source B references a separate district policy.
4. Correct answer: C. The sources do not support an automatic legal conclusion.
5. Correct answer: A. Fixing the documented accuracy issue clarifies what dispute remains.
Strong constructed/performance response: Strong responses do not treat fact-checking and censorship as synonyms. They recognize the documented number problem while preserving the separate question of what authority/process governs any continued hold.
Score Part B and Part C with the master analytic rubric. Do not award or remove points for a learner’s political, institutional, or personal preference. Score the quality of source use, reasoning, authority/process understanding, scope, and communication.