Two Papers, One Pool
Two newspapers cover the same council vote — same 5–2 tally, same $340,000 estimate, same shuttle plan — and produce two different stories: one about fiscal stewardship, one about a neighborhood losing its pool. Neither lies. Students map how emphasis, sourcing, and interpretation shape presentations of identical facts.
Common Core standards covered
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Teacher-facing overview
Big idea: Analyze how two authors writing about the same topic shape their presentations of key information by emphasizing different evidence and advancing different interpretations of facts.
Student target: “I can identify the facts two articles share, map how each author shapes those facts — through emphasis, sourcing, sequence, and silence — and analyze the different interpretations advanced, without mistaking shaping for lying.”
Success criteria: I can inventory the facts both articles report identically. · I can trace one shared fact through both presentations and name the shaping. · I can analyze sourcing: who each article lets speak, and what that choice does. · I can articulate each article's interpretation — and what each leaves quiet.
Essential question
Two reporters attend the same meeting, verify the same numbers, and publish two different stories — without either one lying. If facts alone don't determine the story, what does — and how does a reader hold both versions at once?
Learning target: I can identify the facts two articles share, map how each author shapes those facts — through emphasis, sourcing, sequence, and silence — and analyze the different interpretations advanced, without mistaking shaping for lying.
Success criteria
- I can inventory the facts both articles report identically.
- I can trace one shared fact through both presentations and name the shaping.
- I can analyze sourcing: who each article lets speak, and what that choice does.
- I can articulate each article's interpretation — and what each leaves quiet.
Why this matters
RI.7.9 is the news-literacy standard in its most honest form: not 'one source is biased and one is true,' but two authors SHAPING the same verified facts through emphasis, sourcing, sequence, and silence. This pair is engineered for that exact lesson — identical tallies, estimates, and attendance figures, with every divergence a traceable choice: the same '60 years' as decrepitude and as heritage, the same 400 users as a small constituency and as a neighborhood's kids, the same 40% decline as justification and as symptom. Neither article lies; both leave things quiet. Students who can map this pair stop asking 'which article is fake?' and start asking the adult questions: what does each emphasize, who speaks, what's the denominator — and what would I need to know that neither tells me?
Students should already be able to
- Fact vs. interpretation (from the two-courts work, ideally).
- The sourcing question — who benefits, who speaks.
- Citing across two texts.
Where this shows up outside the classroom
Assessment plan
Formative — for feedback during the lesson
- Warm-up — shaping produced without fabrication.
- Inventory check — common ground verified before divergence.
- Ledger circulation — tools named, silences hunted.
Summative — the graded evidence: Exit ticket (traced fact + sourcing + the dispute sentence) plus the completed ledger; the third article and follow-up file rank as extension evidence.
The passage: “The Ledger's version — 'Fiscally Sound Call'”
An original article pair written for this lesson. Both articles report the same verified facts; every difference is a shaping choice.
¶1 CITY MAKES FISCALLY SOUND CALL ON AGING POOL — from the Riverton Ledger. The city council voted 5–2 Tuesday to keep Marlow Park Pool closed this summer, citing a $340,000 repair estimate for the sixty-year-old facility's cracked shell and failing filtration system — costs that would have consumed nearly the entire parks maintenance budget for the year.
¶2 'This was not a close call, financially,' said Council President Dana Reyes, who noted that the pool served roughly 400 regular users last summer while the city's parks system serves tens of thousands. 'We are responsible for every resident's tax dollar, not just the residents who swim.' An independent engineering report rated the pool shell 'at end of serviceable life' and warned that patch repairs could fail mid-season.
🔒 The full text — 4 numbered paragraphs, plus the photocopy-ready handout — ships in the kit. See plans →
The passage: “The Voice's version — 'The East Side Lost Its Pool'”
The second telling — same facts verified, different story built.
🔒 This companion text — 4 numbered paragraphs — ships in the kit. See plans →
The task students work on
The class builds the shared-facts inventory first — everything BOTH articles report identically (the vote, the estimate, the age, the 400 users, the 40% decline, the shuttle, the splash pad) — then maps the shaping: headlines, sourcing, the same numbers recontextualized, and each article's silences. The interpretation split gets named precisely (stewardship vs. inequity — what the number is weighed against), and the verdict question closes it: neither article lies, so what exactly differs, and what does a complete reader do? Cite by article and ¶ throughout.
The shaping ledger — one fact, two presentations. Cite both articles.
| The shared fact | Article A shapes it as… (¶) | Article B shapes it as… (¶) | The shaping tools at work |
|---|---|---|---|
| The pool is 60 years old | |||
| 400 regular users | |||
| Attendance down 40% since 2015 | |||
| The $15 shuttle plan | |||
| The splash pad study |
Anticipated student strategies
Common ground first because shaping is only visible against agreement. The sourcing audit second — it's the most concrete shaping tool. Silence hunting last: absence is the hardest evidence to see and the most important to learn.
- Common-ground first. The student inventories everything both articles agree on before touching a single difference.
The discipline that makes the lesson honest: the shaping analysis only means something against verified common ground. Share first, enforce always.
🔒 2 more anticipated strategies with select-and-sequence guidance are in the full lesson. See plans →
Lesson script
Collect headlines — 'Champions Hold On' vs. 'Refs Decide Rivalry' — and land the point: identical game, zero lies, two stories, built from emphasis and framing. Name the lesson: today's pair is this exercise at city scale, and the skill is mapping HOW the shaping works — because 'which one is fake?' is the wrong question, and the right ones are better.
Listen for: Emphasis and de-emphasis as choices — the shaping toolkit's first two tools, discovered by using them.
Both articles are in the workbook and the handout. Build the shared inventory on the board: 5–2 vote, $340,000 estimate, sixty years, 400 regular users, 40% decline since 2015, the $15 shuttle to the county center, the splash pad study, roughly forty residents at comment. It's a LONG list — which is the point: these articles agree on nearly every checkable fact. Then the pivot question: if they share all that, what's left to differ? Everything else — and everything else is today's subject.
- Common ground first — the differences only mean something against it.
- The shared list is long on purpose: shaping isn't fabrication.
Listen for: Because its argument doesn't need different facts — it needs a different weighing. Conceding the checkable makes the interpretive case stronger, not weaker.
🔒 The remaining 4 steps — fully scripted with teacher-says lines, discourse questions, look-fors, and interventions — are in the full lesson. See plans →
Misconceptions and how to respond
- “One of these articles is fake news.” Run the inventory: they agree on every checkable fact, and B concedes it out loud (¶4). 'Which is fake?' is the wrong question for most real coverage; the working questions are what's emphasized, who speaks, what's the denominator, and what's left quiet. Those have answers.
- “Article B is biased; Article A is neutral.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “B's added context about cut hours is a contradiction of A's numbers.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Reading both articles means averaging them.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
🔒 Every misconception ships with a tested classroom response. See plans →
Scaffolded practice
The workbook follows gradual release rather than a page of blank prompts: 2 fully worked, 2 partially completed, then 4 independent.
- I doLiteral first — the common ground. List six facts both articles report identically, with citations from each.
🔒 7 more prompts across all three release tiers are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked solutions and scaffolds for every prompt are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Exit ticket
- One shared fact, traced: how each article shapes it, both cited.
🔒 2 more exit-ticket questions are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked answers, the completed answer tables, and the scoring rubric are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Printable handouts in the kit
All handouts are in Printable_Handouts.pdf inside the kit download.
Materials and classroom resources
Student experience
Students enter through a low-floor prompt, build or sketch a model, test a strategy, revise their thinking, collaborate, and present a final solution. The task remains accessible while allowing for sophisticated reasoning.
Detailed facilitation notes
- Step 1: Read both articles; inventory the facts BOTH report identically. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 2: Map the shaping: what each article emphasizes, who each one quotes, what each leaves quiet. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 3: Find the interpretation split: same numbers, different meanings. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 4: Judge: is either article lying? Then what exactly differs? Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
Differentiation and inclusion
Support: The shared-facts inventory anchors the comparison in verifiable common ground; extend with the third-article task and the attendance-history analysis.
Language support: “I started by…”, “My model shows…”, and “I know my answer is reasonable because…”.
Extension: Require a second solution, alter a condition, or have students write a challenge for another group.
Accessibility: Manipulatives, enlarged visuals, oral response choices, partner reading, and reduced-copy student pages.
Assessment plan
Formative checks: Strategy choice, accuracy, representation, collaboration, and explanation.
End evidence: One shared fact traced through both presentations, with a two-sentence analysis of how each article shapes it — plus the sourcing observation.
Mastery: The student completes the task accurately and explains the strategy with limited prompting.