After School: CASE 16
Levels of authority
1: STORY
The group chat contains four complaints: a bus route changed, a graduation requirement is confusing, a passport rule affects a trip, and a classroom deadline feels impossible. Someone suggests sending all four to a high-profile elected official. It would produce one satisfying message, but it might not reach the people who can explain or change each decision.
The practice authority map connects route operations with a local transit agency, many graduation rules with a state education agency or legislature, passports with the federal government, and course deadlines with a teacher or school. These connections are starting points. They do not identify every applicable policy, staff role, or exception in a real location.
The most visible person is not always the first useful contact. A teacher may explain a course deadline but cannot rewrite a passport requirement. A school may help interpret graduation requirements even when it does not control all of them. Separate the person who can explain a rule from the institution that has authority to change it.
Choose one scenario and build a short authority ladder. Put the decision owner first, then the written rule you would request, then any review or appeal route the rule actually provides. A ladder does not mean every concern automatically climbs to the same person at the top. It should show a realistic route for this particular question, with missing information labeled.
2: EVIDENCE
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — Scenario cards
NPW practice set: bus route change; graduation requirement; passport rule; classroom deadline.
What it establishes: Shows four problems at different authority levels.
Question while reading: Which institution owns each decision?
SOURCE B — Authority map
NPW practice document. Local transit agency to route operations; state education agency/legislature to many graduation rules; federal government to passports; teacher/school to course deadlines subject to higher rules.
What it establishes: Provides a starting map, not every exception.
Question while reading: Where could authority overlap?
SOURCE C — Appeal/escalation note
NPW practice document. “Start with the actor who owns the decision; use higher-level appeal only where the rule provides one.”
What it establishes: Teaches process.
Question while reading: Why is “contact the president/governor” often the wrong first step?
Source A identifies four decisions but supplies no actual notices, locations, or complete rules. Source B maps each decision to an institution or role. Because B describes “many” graduation rules and deadlines “subject to higher rules,” a diagram that treats each level as completely separate would misread the evidence.
Source C supplies a process principle: begin with the decision owner and use a higher-level appeal where the rule provides it. It does not promise an appeal for every issue or authorize bypassing the first contact. A/B/C support a qualified route, not a guarantee that a particular office must reverse a decision.
3: PRACTICE
C makes escalation conditional on the actual rule. B also shows that different decisions have different owners, so a universal chain would be misleading.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Build an authority ladder for the specific decision. 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.
For the classroom deadline in A, my ladder starts with the teacher or school because B identifies that level as the starting owner, subject to higher rules. I would ask for the written deadline policy and the procedure for requesting a change. If that policy identifies a review contact, I would take the documented question there next, following C. The receipts do not name the course, explain why the deadline exists, or establish an appeal right. My first message would ask: “Which policy governs this deadline, and who can review a request under it?” I would save the response before escalating.
If an office does not own the decision, what evidence-based referral should you request next?
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. |
