The crew wants an achievable, evidence-backed school change. The practice proposal gives them a concrete starting point: keep the library open until 6 p.m. three days a week. A specific proposal does not itself prove demand, affordability, staffing, or approval.
Lupa reads the staffing schedule: the librarian's contract ends at 4 p.m., after-school supervisors are available until 6 p.m., and a budget code permits hourly coverage with approval. These details identify options and constraints. They do not show that a supervisor has been assigned, that funds are sufficient, or that all library services can continue unchanged.
Pauta follows the decision map. Student council may recommend, the principal may approve a pilot within budget, and district operations approves a permanent staffing change. Nexo sees that a recommendation, a temporary trial, and a permanent arrangement are different decisions. A smaller decision may already be within the principal's authority.
Onda asks how the crew could learn who would use later hours and what barriers remain after the library opens. Voz shapes a short information brief separating the proposal, documented options, unknown costs, and needed approval. A costed pilot review is a possible next step without promising new hours or inventing demand.
2: EVIDENCE
Open the receipts.
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — Student proposal
NPW practice document. “Open the library until 6 p.m. three days a week.”
What it establishes: States a concrete proposed change.
Question while reading: What evidence would show need and feasibility?
SOURCE B — Staffing schedule
NPW practice document. Librarian contract ends 4 p.m.; after-school supervisors available until 6 p.m.; budget code permits hourly coverage with approval.
What it establishes: Shows operational constraints/options.
Question while reading: Who controls staffing approval?
SOURCE C — Decision map
NPW practice document. Student council may recommend; principal may approve pilot within budget; district operations approves permanent staffing change.
What it establishes: Shows layered authority.
Question while reading: What is the smallest decision that can happen first?
Source A states the desired hours and weekly frequency. It is evidence of a proposal, not evidence that students need it or that it has been approved. Source B identifies staffing times and a budget mechanism permitting hourly coverage with approval; it does not supply a cost, committed staff, or an available funding balance.
Source C assigns recommendation, pilot approval, and permanent staffing approval to different actors. Combining it with Source B supports approaching the principal about a possible pilot within budget. The packet does not justify skipping approval or asserting that a pilot is feasible. Demand, cost, supervision, and service information would strengthen the project.
3: PRACTICE
Try your read.
Check the reasoning
Source C allows principal approval of a pilot within budget. Source B identifies options that still require cost and staffing confirmation.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Complete a mini public-information project with sources and one realistic next step.
Complete a mini public-information project with sources and one realistic next step. 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
Our information brief asks whether the school can test library access until 6 p.m. three days weekly (Source A). The librarian's contract ends at 4 p.m.; after-school supervisors are available until 6 p.m., and hourly coverage is possible with approval (Source B). This identifies an option, not committed staffing or sufficient funds. Student council can recommend a pilot, the principal can approve one within budget, and district operations handles permanent staffing changes (Source C). We would ask the principal for a costed pilot review and gather student-use information without inventing demand. The project will record open questions about supervision, services, cost, and criteria for judging the pilot.
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
How could you apply this method to a request for a new after-school activity when student interest, supervision, space, and funding are still uncertain?
MediaWise Teen Fact-Checking Network with PBS NewsHour Student Reporting Labs
A specific teen fact-check of an imitation celebrity account. The linked case includes handouts and teacher notes.
Watch or read for this
Which evidence establishes the account's identity independently of whether the face looks convincing?
Use it in a case
Build an identity-verification ladder: account description, original uploader, corroborating official account and independent reporting. Treat visual glitches as weak clues, never a reliable 2026 detection test.
Make: A verification ladder with confidence levels and an unresolved question.
Video URL verified from the PBS embed. YouTube playback/captions not tested. The case page can supply the source trail if playback fails.
Behind the Case: educator notes
45–55 min core, 80–100 min full
Teaching moves
Have groups organize a brief into proposal, established facts, and needed information.
Ask students to trace a recommendation through pilot approval to permanent staffing approval, labeling the different evidence each step would need.
After peer review identifies an unsupported claim, assess whether revision makes the next step more feasible.
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.
