After School: CASE 14
Student journalism and speech
1: STORY
The fictional student newspaper has drafted a story about cafeteria inspection records, with student comments included. Before publication, the question in the newsroom becomes whether the school can stop it. One answer treats any adviser review as censorship. That answer has not examined the policy or the specific facts.
The draft contains no private student records. That matters because the actual content needs review before anyone can explain a privacy concern. It does not mean every accuracy, privacy, or legal question is automatically resolved. A careful editor can defend the reporting while still checking whether quotations and the inspection findings have been presented fairly.
The publications policy calls for adviser review of accuracy, privacy, and legal concerns. It also says editorial authority follows district policy and applicable law. Read that language closely: a local process is described, but the excerpt does not settle every question about who gets the final decision or what legal protections apply.
Your task is to separate the questions that have become tangled together. What does the draft actually contain? What does the school’s policy require? What constitutional or state-law context would need checking before a legal conclusion? Make an issue map an editor could bring to the adviser. Asking for the written basis of a concern is more useful than trying to win the entire dispute with one slogan.
2: EVIDENCE
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — Student newspaper draft
NPW practice document. Article reports on cafeteria inspection records and quotes students; no private student records included.
What it establishes: Shows content of proposed story.
Question while reading: What school interests/rules could be relevant?
SOURCE B — Publications policy
NPW practice document. “School-sponsored publications receive adviser review for accuracy, privacy, and legal concerns; editorial authority follows district policy and applicable law.”
What it establishes: Shows local policy and that legal context matters.
Question while reading: Is a policy the same as constitutional law?
SOURCE C — Court-case note
Official-source teaching summary: student speech rights differ by context, including whether speech is school-sponsored; exact legal analysis depends on jurisdiction and facts.
What it establishes: Establishes need for context, not a universal answer.
Question while reading: Which fact pattern details matter most?
Source A establishes the subject and described contents of the draft, without private student records. Source B identifies a review process and the need to consult district policy and applicable law. B does not, by itself, prove that any proposed restriction is legally valid or that the adviser has unlimited power.
Source C warns that school sponsorship, jurisdiction, and other facts matter. It supports a contextual inquiry, not a universal outcome. A/B/C identify further questions: the publication’s status, the precise concern, the full district policy, and current law in the relevant jurisdiction. The receipts do not resolve those missing details.
3: PRACTICE
B describes a local review process and refers to applicable law. C makes context necessary; A’s privacy detail alone cannot settle the remaining questions.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Separate constitutional, state-law, and school-policy questions. Include one clear claim or question, at least two source references, one statement of uncertainty/scope, the person or office with relevant authority, and one realistic next step.
Issue map: A describes reporting on inspection records with student quotes and no private student records. For the school-policy question, B requires adviser review and refers to district policy; I would ask the adviser to identify any specific disputed passage and the written basis for a change. For the constitutional question, C says publication context matters. For the state-law question, we still need the applicable jurisdiction and current authority. I cannot conclude from these excerpts that the school either may or may not stop the story. Next, the editors should gather the full policy and seek context-specific student-press guidance.
If the story appeared independently, which questions would change? Identify the publication-status facts you would verify.
45–55 min core, 80–100 min full
| Criterion | Beginning | Developing | Strong | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy & scope | Repeats claim. | Mostly accurate; scope incomplete. | Accurate and properly scoped. | Accurate, scoped, and explicit about uncertainty. |
| Evidence | Little or unrelated. | Relevant source, sometimes overstated. | Explains what sources establish. | Compares sources and limits. |
| Authority | Names actor without role. | Plausible authority. | Explains who decides and why. | Maps proposal, approval, implementation, review. |
| Communication | Vague or audience-mismatched. | Main point understandable. | Clear, specific, audience-aware. | Clear, accessible, precise, well-qualified. |
