Most Recent Articles
Choosing topics for editorials QT37
The best and most effective staff editorials are those that tackle an important topic and then give audiences a reason and a way to address it.
Staff editorials should concern local or localized issues for the student body and/or school community. They may advocate, solve a problem or commend.
Guidelines
Staff editorials should concern local or localized issues for the student body and/or school community. They may advocate, solve a problem or commend.
Question: What are best practices in choosing staff editorial materials?
Key points/action: The best and most effective staff editorials are those that tackle an important topic and then give audiences a reason and a way to address it.
Stance: Develop criteria for choosing editorial topics that can include:
- A topic that can make a difference
- A topic for which there can be reliable and credible sources
- A topic audiences can address and create change
- A topic that has reported content to provide background
- A topic for which the reporter(s) can find first-hand information and sources
Reasoning/suggestions:
Remember, editorials are concise, supported and take a stand. Also to note: staff editorials are unsigned because they represent the entire publication or media.
Resources:
Quick Hit: Staff editorial process, JEA Scholastic Press Committee
Quick Hit: Importance of staff editorials, JEA Scholastic Press Committee
“Mirror, mirror on the wall,” JEA Scholastic Press Committee
“Where have the leaders gone?” JEA Scholastic Press Committee
Editorials under attack, Student Press Law Center
“They need the freedom to make mistakes, too,” Lindsay Coppens, JEA Press Rights Committee
Explained: why newspapers endorse presidential candidates, Dylan Baddour, Houston Chronicle
Reading newspapers: Editorial and opinion pieces, Learn NC
Video: How to write an editorial, New York Times
Writing an Editorial, Alan Weintraut
Related: These points and other decisions about mission statement, forum status and editorial policy should be part of a Foundations Package that protects journalistically responsible student expression.
Read More
FAPFA deadline Dec. 15
Five days.
120 hours.
45words.
That’s the time left to submit your Round 1 application for the First Amendment Press Freedom Award and reaffirm your school’s support for the First Amendment.
We have received several applications with only one entry (2 are required). Please check and submit your second entry.
Even if we recognized your school in the past, you still need to submit a new entry yearly because, frankly, situations change. Several past recipients have not reapplied.
This First Amendment Press Freedom Award recognizes high schools that actively support, teach and protect First Amendment rights and responsibilities of students and teachers. The recognition focuses on student-run media where students make all final decisions of content without prior review.
As in previous years, schools seek FAPFA recognition by first answering questionnaires submitted by an adviser and at least one editor. Those who advance to the next level will be asked to provide separate responses from the principal and all media advisers and student editors, indicating their support of the First Amendment. In addition, semifinalists submit samples of their school and media online or printed policies that show student media applying their freedoms.
Schools recognized as meeting FAPFA criteria will be honored at the opening ceremony of the JEA/NSPA Spring National High School Journalism Convention in San Francisco.
First round applications are due annually before Dec. 15. Downloadable applications for 2018 are available at this link.
Read More
The perks of being a wallflower:
How a school district escaped a lawsuit
by fostering an independent student press QT36
Quick Tips: Student First Amendment Rights
Yeo v. Town of Lexington (1997) in the First Circuit Court of Appeals
by Jan Ewell
Because Lexington High School students made all the editorial, business and staffing decisions for both the LHS Yearbook and the school paper, a suit against the district failed. The school’s superintendent, principal, the two publication advisers and the five school members of the school committee escaped unharmed from the suit that alleged they were violating the First and Fourteenth amendments when the school publications refused two ads.
In 1992 the Lexington School Committee in Lexington, Massachusetts debated making condoms available to students without parental permission. The Musket, the Lexington High School newspaper, ran news articles and editorials on the debate.
Douglas Yeo, a parent and the leaders of a group opposing the condom-distribution policy, complained to the school’s principal about the Musket’s coverage, saying it did not accurately reflect his group’s position. The principal acted in accord with Massachusetts’s law, which gives editorial control to the students under the Tinker standard. He directed Yeo to the student editors of the paper, saying they would make any decisions regarding corrections. He suggested Yeo write a letter to the editor. Yeo did not contact the student paper.
In March of 1993 the voters of Lexington approved the condom distribution policy. In November Yeo and his group submitted a $200 check and a full page ad to the yearbook. The ad read, “ABSTINENCE: The Healthy Choice. Sponsored by: Lexington Parents Information Network (LEXNET)” followed by a post office box number.
In an editorial meeting considered the ad, the student editors of the yearbook decided it was out of context with their publication; most of their ads congratulated graduates. Some came from family, others from local businesses used by students. The Yearbook had an unwritten policy not to publish political advocacy ads.
Through their adviser (this was before cell phones) they asked Yeo to rewrite the ad to reflect the usual patterns. Yeo refused and threatened to sue the yearbook unless his ad was published as submitted. The students discussed the ad again and decided to stand by their original decision. Yeo apparently felt the students were censoring him and faxed in response, “based on our understanding of the right of equal access and free speech, we do not accept your rejection of our ad and ask that you reconsider your decision to censor it.”
In January of 1994 Yeo submitted the same ad to the Musket, the student run newspaper, with an added line reading, “For accurate information on abstinence, safer sex and condoms, contact. . .” The student editors met and decided to reject the ad. Though a number of students at the meeting supported Yeo’s pro-abstinence views, they did not want the Musket to turn into a bulletin board for advocacy on lifestyle issues. Additionally, they were uncomfortably with having to run an ad because someone had threated to sue them.
They wrote Yeo saying that if they had accepted his ad, they “would feel obligated to accept other political statements that might come our way. We do not wish to put ourselves in such position. Ultimately Ad space is not a public forum and for that reason the Musket reserves the right to select what Advertisements it chooses to print.”
Yeo threatened the town and school authorities with legal action. Though the administration wished to avoid lawsuits, they continued to support the students’ control of the content of their publication. This proved fortunate for them because the only forms of government (including schools and the teachers as government employees) are restrained by the First Amendment. If the school, that is, the government, had decided whether to run the ad, they may indeed have violated Yeo’s rights.
The students suggested that Yeo write a letter to the editor; the Letter to the Editor section was a public forum. Yeo refused and insisted his ad be run as submitted, “as is our legal right.” He concluded, “You don’t have to agree with it. You don’t even have to like. You just have to print it. Touché. ”
Yeo did sue the superintendent, the principal, the advisers of the yearbook and newspaper, and the Lexington school committee, claiming that they were denying his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. He did not name the publication or the students, who in fact were the ones who rejected his ad, but as private entities and as citizens the students and their publication could not violate his First or Fourteenth amendment rights.
Ultimately the U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Yeo. Student journalists do have the right to refuse ads. They are not government agents. Since only the government is in a position to violate the First Amendment or the Fourteenth, there was no suppression of Yeo’s rights.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the school district was not responsible for the students’ decisions. “As a matter of law, we see no legal duty here on the part of school administrators to control the content of the editorial judgments of student editors of publications.”
Under Massachusetts law, the students control the content of the student publications. At Lexington High School, the policy and practice had been for the students to make editorial and business decisions. School officials were not responsible for those decisions, and so there were no First or Fourteenth amendment violations.
The district was protected from judgment in the suit because the students controlled the student media.
And yes, both publications changed their unwritten policy concerning political advocacy ads into clear written policies.
Note: This is not a Supreme Court Case. In May of 1998 the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, letting the First Circuit Court’s decision stand. It is the law in only the First Circuit, that is Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island, but it has been cited as a persuasive precedent in similar case.
Resources:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1136678.html
http://principalsguide.org/the-first-amendment-and-student-media/
http://www.splc.org/article/1998/08/court-refuses-to-hear-advertiser
Read MoreWhen sources don’t respond QT35
Guideline:
The publication staff will provide every reasonable opportunity for sources to respond to a request for an interview. Students must first attempt to contact the source in person or through an administrative assistant. If the person is not available, they should attempt calling and leaving a message with a request for an in-person interview. If, after 24 hours, the source does not respond to the telephone call, staffers should send an email requesting an in-person interview with a clear deadline by which the staffer will include the line “the source did not respond to an interview request.”
Social media post/question:
What to do when a source does not respond?
Stance:
Publication staffs must make all reasonable attempts to secure an interview, and if they cannot get a response from a source, they must develop their credibility and show the reader they made an attempt to interview a source, but the source did not respond.
Key Points:
An easy way to stop or stall a story is to make sure the students never get an interview with the people who have the information. It’s easy for a source to ignore a request for an interview. What is your responsibility as a publication when reasonable attempts are made to secure an interview, but the source does not respond?
Reasoning/suggestions:
To maintain credibility with their readers and/or to show balance, publication staffers must show they followed proper procedures to offer right of response or to obtain pertinent information for a story. When a story goes out with important sources who have been omitted, readers have a right to question the veracity or intent of the story. Always let your readers know who you contacted for the story even if they ignored or rejected your request for an interview.
Read MoreMaking a case for press freedom
in private schools
by Kristin Taylor, CJE
Private school students do not have First Amendment protections, but that doesn’t mean they have no options. In fact, some private high school students enjoy robust press freedom.
I am fortunate to advise a program at a school that has won the First Amendment Press Freedom Award the past two years. At the recent Dallas convention, my editor-in-chief Cybele and I presented a workshop to help students at other private schools make a case to their administrations for press freedom in the hopes more private schools journalism programs will join the list of FAPFA recipients in the future.
If your program is in California or Rhode Island, you should start by looking at your state laws. Unlike most New Voices legislation, which applies to public school students, both of these states have additional laws to protect private school journalists. Even without a legal recourse, however, students can make a strong case for press freedom in other ways.
- Link press freedom to the school’s mission statement
Private schools, whether religious or secular, are founded on a central mission. This mission guides all aspects of the school, from hiring practices to curriculum and instruction. Making the connection between a school’s mission and supporting a free student press is often straightforward and effective. Here are two examples; I have bolded language that comes directly from the schools’ mission statements.
From my school: “Student media at Archer connects directly to the school’s mission to ‘strengthen girls’ voices’ and ‘promote challenge-seeking and support risk-taking’ in order to ‘graduate courageous, committed, and ethical young women.’ For these purposes, as well as to teach students responsibility by empowering them to make and defend their own decisions, student news media at the Archer School for Girls are designated open forums for student expression where students make all final decisions of content. Therefore, student material published on The Oracle may not reflect the opinions or policies of The Archer School for Girls, and neither school employees nor the school itself are legally responsible for its content.”
From Convent of the Sacred Heart: “’Schools of the Sacred Heart commit themselves to educate to personal growth in an atmosphere of wise freedom,’ (Goal 5), therefore The Broadview operates as an open forum for free speech and student expression without prior review.”
- Make an argument for civic engagement and 21st century skills — and earning the FAPFA.
Most schools cite building 21st century skills as a key curricular goal, and I would argue scholastic journalism builds more of these skills than any other program. Making a pedagogical argument for the value of practicing democracy, not just preaching it, is another strategy for winning administrative support.
Check out the Framework for 21st Century Skills or this Education Week teacher blog for arguments to help your case. For administrators who are concerned about critical articles making the school “look bad” — an understandable concern for schools who rely on student applications and tuition — reframe “bad press” in terms of showcasing student voice and practicing democracy.
A vibrant, free student press acting as a watchdog reveals important issues that the administration can then address. These schools don’t just say they empower student voices — they live it. I also recommend sharing information about the FAPFA and the prestige of winning this award. Only three private schools have ever won it; wouldn’t they like to join that list?
- Ground the publication in journalistic ethics and best practices.
If you don’t have a state law or the Constitution to protect freedom of the press, building credibility as a publication is key. How does a staff you do that? Good reporting, careful fact-checking and an ethical framework.
When my students and I were initially building our program, we spent a lot of time talking about the adage, “Just because you can publish doesn’t mean you always should.” Although press freedom should never be tied to an administrator’s beliefs about what should or should not be published, the student editorial board needs an ethical code to guide them through difficult decisions — and they need to practice applying that code to tough situations.
- Build a relationship with administrators. Educate them about the process and sustain respectful, but firm, communication.
Once you have put the previous steps into practice, it’s time to showcase your program. Invite administrators into the classroom to see the staff at work. Have student reporters explain the process they go through to ensure accurate, fair reporting. Have student editors walk administrators through a hypothetical ethical dilemma so they can see how the editors apply their ethical code to real-world scenarios. Administrators who understand the process are much more likely to trust it.
The editorial board — and especially the editor-in-chief — also needs to practice navigating conversations with administrators when problems arise. For example, when our middle school director wanted to see middle-schoolers’ quotes before a potentially controversial story was published a few years back in our grades 6-12 school, my 12th grade editor-in-chief sat down with her to explain prior review and why our publication doesn’t participate in it. She also explained the careful process the reporters and editors go through to ensure quotes aren’t taken out of context or used to humiliate young sources.
The conversation resolved the problem — the middle school director was reassured, and the article was published without prior review. The editors also decided to include a new ethical guideline in our staff manual to have upper school reporters consider the age and maturity of middle school sources when quoting them.
For those working in public schools, some of these strategies may feel like pandering. But private schools are about relationships, and sometimes private school students have to persuade where public school students can demand. Once persuaded, however, administrators can become ardent press freedom supporters. That has been the case at my school. I hope these strategies will help more private schools join us on that FAFPA list in the future.
Read More