Paloma has been told that her sweatshirt violates a school rule, but the adults explaining the rule do not give the same account. Before deciding which explanation applies, she needs to identify the written rule and who is allowed to make it. An adult's job title alone does not identify the source of a requirement.
The district handbook prohibits clothing displaying threats, targeted harassment, or content that materially disrupts instruction. It also permits principals to issue consistent school procedures. This creates a relationship between two levels of rules: a school procedure can explain local practice, while still having to fit the district policy.
The other two receipts concern hats, not Paloma's sweatshirt. The principal's procedure allows hats except during laboratory safety activities or when a teacher identifies a safety need. A classroom slide simply says no hats. Read together, these records raise a specific question: does the classroom expectation reflect an identified safety need, or is it broader than the school procedure?
The hat example helps Paloma map authority, but it cannot settle her sweatshirt situation. The receipts do not describe the sweatshirt's content or the reason it was challenged. Her map should show district policy, delegated principal procedures, and classroom implementation, with an unanswered question beside the teacher's blanket wording. Asking for clarification is more precise than declaring every adult right or every classroom expectation invalid.
2: EVIDENCE
Open the receipts.
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — Student handbook excerpt
NPW practice document; district handbook; effective August 2026. “Clothing may not display threats, targeted harassment, or content that materially disrupts instruction. Principals may issue school procedures consistent with this policy.”
What it establishes: Establishes a district-level rule and delegated school authority. It does not establish whether a specific outfit violates it.
Question while reading: Which words tell you who may create school procedures?
SOURCE B — School dress procedure
NPW practice document; principal; August 2026. “Hats are permitted except during laboratory safety activities or when a teacher identifies a safety need.”
What it establishes: Establishes the school-specific hat procedure. It does not turn the procedure into state law.
Question while reading: Is this a law, district policy, or school procedure?
SOURCE C — Teacher classroom note
NPW practice document; classroom slide. “No hats in this classroom.”
What it establishes: Shows a teacher expectation. It does not establish that the expectation is authorized by the district or school procedure in every situation.
Question while reading: What would you check before calling this “the school rule”?
Source A establishes the district policy and delegates procedure-making to principals. Source B is the principal's school procedure within that arrangement. Its safety exceptions matter: a laboratory restriction and an all-day classroom ban do not automatically describe the same situation. Neither source is presented as state law.
Source C records a teacher's expectation, but supplies no safety explanation. That gap warrants a question, not a verdict about the teacher's authority. The original sweatshirt concern remains unresolved because the packet's detailed school and classroom rules address hats. A strong map separates what the documents authorize from what still needs case-specific facts.
3: PRACTICE
Try your read.
Check the reasoning
Source C records the expectation. Source B makes the safety context relevant, while no receipt describes Paloma's sweatshirt closely enough to decide its status.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Build a Who Decides? map for the rule.
Build a Who Decides? map for the rule. 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.
Compare with a worked response
My Who Decides? map begins with the district: Source A sets the clothing policy and allows consistent principal procedures. Next is the principal: Source B permits hats, with laboratory or identified safety exceptions. The teacher implements classroom expectations, but Source C's blanket no-hats statement needs an explanation of the safety basis. These documents do not establish whether Paloma's sweatshirt violates the handbook, because its content and the stated reason are missing. I would ask the teacher which written provision applies, then ask the principal to clarify consistency with the school procedure. I would label the map policy, procedure, and classroom expectation.
Before you close the case
What is one thing the strongest source establishes?
What can it not establish?
Who can decide or clarify the issue?
What changed between your first read and your read now?
One step further
If a club adviser sets a phone rule, which documents would help distinguish district requirements, school procedures, and club expectations?
Behind the Case: educator notes
45–55 min core, 80–100 min full
Teaching moves
Give students three document cards and have them connect authority using the exact delegation sentence in the handbook.
Separate the sweatshirt question from the hat evidence; ask which facts could legitimately connect them.
Role-play a clarification request that asks for a safety basis without assuming either unlimited teacher power or an invalid rule.
Supports and response choices
Preview the three most important terms with examples.
Allow oral, typed, handwritten, or visual-map response when format is not the learning goal.
Keep the original source excerpt beside a plain-language annotation.
Keep formal English institutional terms visible beside translated explanation.
Advanced extension: compare the practice document with a real current local source.
