What this is
You will pick one of 8 water-rights disputes. Within that case, you'll pick one stakeholder perspective (each case has 6–7 stakeholder options: farmer, government, industry, downstream community, NGO, etc.). You then produce a Stakeholders Map (a visual representation of who's involved, what they want, how they relate) plus a Position Paper (2 pages or 4-min video) advocating for your chosen stakeholder's position, not your own default view.
The defense is a multi-stakeholder Roundtable: peers representing competing stakeholders in the same case actively argue, propose, refuse, seek compromise. This is the fourth defense in the year-long arc and the first one with a real negotiation format (not Q&A). The Roundtable does not need to reach consensus; real disputes often don't. What matters is whether you can hold your stakeholder's position under pressure while engaging the legitimate concerns of competing stakeholders.
GRASPS framing
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| Goal | Build a complete stakeholder map for a real water-rights dispute, then advocate for one stakeholder's position in a multi-stakeholder Roundtable. |
| Role | Advocate / representative for one stakeholder in the dispute. You take on their interests, evidence, and position, not your own default view. |
| Audience | Competing stakeholders (peer classmates) + hypothetical mediating body (judges, tribunal, neutral planning agency). |
| Situation | Water-rights dispute requires negotiation. Each stakeholder has legitimate claim, limited resources, competing pressures. No one position will fully win. |
| Product | Stakeholders Map (visual + 1-page narrative) + Position Paper (2 pages written OR 4-min captioned video) + AI Documentation Template + Stakeholder Roundtable participation (2-min opening + ≥3 responses + 1 negotiation move). |
| Standards | HS-ESS2-2, HS-ESS2-5, HS-ESS3-1 (primary). HS-ESS3-4 (secondary). SEP-7 (argumentation), SEP-8 (communication). |
Pick your class above to see today's instructions for your class.
B7: you build your own Stakeholder Voice bot for your chosen stakeholder: the Boodle Build Assignment. The 8-section system-prompt template guides identity + beliefs + strongest argument + non-negotiable + honest admission + opponent-framing + cited evidence + constraints. You test it with a classmate in Block 8, and your AI Doc covers the build.
A3 and B6: you work with Flint Stakeholder Voice tutors that Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Matt has already set up for each stakeholder. Your job is to push for the strongest version of the position.
Every class builds the same perspective-taking skill and is marked on the same rubric. You meet your tools in Block 7.
Three deliverable formats: same rubric
- Written paper: 2 pages. Standard 4-part structure (see below).
- Annotated video: 4 min max, fully captioned. Screen-record yourself delivering the Position Paper as your stakeholder, in character.
Stakeholders Map: visual representation (diagram, matrix, network map, infographic) plus a 1-page narrative walking a reader through who's involved. Visual format is your choice.
Roundtable: live (Block 9, in class) is the default. Asynchronous pre-recorded alternative is available; pre-approve with Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Matt by Block 8.
The 8 water-rights cases
Pick one. The Cauvery is the local anchor; the other 7 are offered for distance + breadth. Each case includes 6–7 named stakeholders to choose from.
| Case | Region | Why this one is interesting |
|---|---|---|
| Cauvery dispute | South India (TN ↔ KA) | Anchor case. Most politically charged. Multi-decade Supreme Court history. Cauvery Water Management Authority enforcement. |
| Indus Waters Treaty | India ↔ Pakistan | Survived three wars. 2023–2025 deterioration. The treaty that wouldn't quit, until maybe. |
| Colorado River basin | Western US + Mexico | 7 US states + Mexico + tribal nations + drought + reservoir collapse. Complex stakeholder map. |
| Nile Basin | NE Africa (EG ↔ ET ↔ SD) | Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Egypt's existential water claim vs. Ethiopia's development right. |
| Mekong River | SE Asia (5 countries) | Upstream Chinese dams vs. downstream Cambodian + Vietnamese fisheries. International power asymmetry. |
| Aral Sea | Uzbekistan + Kazakhstan | Cautionary tale. Soviet cotton irrigation killed the sea. Studied for what NOT to do. |
| Cooum River restoration | Chennai local | Urban multi-stakeholder: government, slums, businesses, NGOs. Connects to U2 Landscape Reading work. |
| Bangalore water crisis | Bangalore urban | Single-city scope. Tanker mafia, lake disappearance, Cauvery dependence. Recent + close to home. |
The Stakeholders Map: 7-field template
Build a map of ≥5 distinct, specific stakeholders in your chosen case. For each, fill all 7 fields:
- Stakeholder Name: be specific. "Tamil Nadu Cauvery delta rice farmers (5th-generation, Thanjavur)" not "farmers."
- Who They Are: 1–2 sentences identifying the specific group.
- What They Want: primary interest, in their framing.
- Evidence They Cite: what supports their position? Data, history, lived experience, legal documents.
- Position: what specifically should happen?
- Power: how much influence do they have? How do they exercise it?
- Allies + Opponents: who do they align with? Against?
Plus a 1-page narrative walking the reader through the map's key tensions, alliances, and contested claims.
The Position Paper: 4-part structure
- Opening (~150 words): establish who's speaking + what's at stake from this stakeholder's view. Use their voice from word 1. ("My grandfather walked off the troopship in Sydney in 1932…" not "A farmer would argue…")
- Core argument (~500–700 words): argue this stakeholder's position using evidence they would cite. Specific data, events, harms or benefits as the stakeholder experiences them.
- Acknowledge competing concerns (~150–200 words): real stakeholders acknowledge other parties' concerns. Acknowledge ≥1 legitimate competing concern without conceding your position. Stating the competing concern fairly is the move.
- Negotiation opening (~100 words): what trade or compromise might this stakeholder accept? What would they never accept? Real stakeholders signal both willingness and boundaries.
The Position Paper is not your personal opinion in a different name. If your paper reads the same regardless of which stakeholder you chose, perspective-taking work hasn't happened. The voice-match move is the entire T/T centerpiece of the assessment.
Required components
- Stakeholders Map (visual + 1-page narrative)
- Position Paper (2 pages written OR 4-min captioned video)
- AI Documentation Template: required, not optional. Documents your AI use (Hydrologist for case hydrology; Stakeholder Voice for perspective-taking; any other AI). In B7, also document the Boodle Build process: what design choices, which felt right, what the bot got wrong when peer-tested.
- Stakeholder Roundtable participation: 2-min opening statement + ≥3 substantive responses to competing stakeholders + at least 1 negotiation move (proposing trade, conceding a point, asking substantive clarifying question).
What you'll be scored on
U5 introduces perspective-taking as the year's T/T centerpiece. K/U covers water-systems + water-rights knowledge. T/T covers whether you genuinely argued from the stakeholder's perspective (not your own). C covers clarity + Roundtable engagement + voice-match across formats.
Each strand mark is read holistically from the whole body of evidence this assessment produces. There is no weighted average of parts.
- Voice-match is what T/T reads for. If your Position Paper reads as your own view in slightly different words (same arguments + evidence you'd personally cite), that is what the lower T/T bands describe. The whole assessment is built around perspective-taking; if you didn't take the perspective, T/T reflects that. No strand is capped.
- Stakeholder specificity is what K/U reads for. A Stakeholders Map naming generic groups ("farmers," "government," "environmentalists") rather than specific identifiable stakeholders is what the middle K/U bands describe.
- AI Documentation is required. Same as prior units. If AI was used and the Template is missing or trivial, the work is not scored until it arrives; no strand is capped. In B7, the Boodle Build documentation is required too.
- The negotiation move is the C signal. A strong Paper plus mere restatement at the Roundtable, with no real negotiation move, is what the middle C bands describe. The Roundtable is negotiation, not Q&A.
Rubric: K/U / T/T / C across 4 bands
K/U: Knowledge & Understanding
The student recalls facts, terms and definitions while also explaining concepts, ideas, processes, themes. The student performs skills related to their studies.
- 7–8 (Exemplary): Exemplary knowledge of hydrology + water-rights frameworks. Map identifies ≥5 distinct, specific stakeholders. Water cycle, watershed, quality concepts correctly applied. Vocabulary (riparian, prior appropriation, public trust, conjunctive use) precise. Hydrology of case correct.
- 5–6 (Proficient): Map identifies 5+ stakeholders, mostly specific. Hydrologic concepts mostly correct. Vocabulary mostly accurate.
- 3–4 (Developing): Stakeholders generic. Hydrology with conceptual errors. Vocabulary inconsistent.
- 1–2 (Limited): Stakeholders missing or all generic. Hydrology absent. Vocabulary missing.
T/T: Thinking & Transfer
The student plans for learning by formulating questions, generating ideas, researching. The student thinks critically. The student applies knowledge to unfamiliar contexts.
- 7–8 (Exemplary): Highly effective perspective-taking. Position Paper argues from stakeholder's view using THEIR evidence, not student's own. Voice matches stakeholder. Competing concerns acknowledged honestly. Specific negotiation move proposed. Map shows power, alliances, evidence-gaps. OPVL rigorous on politically diverse sources. AI-source limitations specific.
- 5–6 (Proficient): Proficient perspective-taking. Paper mostly stays in voice; appropriate evidence but some default-view bleed. Competing concerns acknowledged. Map shows correct relationships.
- 3–4 (Developing): Paper reads as student's own view in different name: argues from personal preference, not stakeholder's framing. Map identifies but doesn't show dynamics.
- 1–2 (Limited): No real attempt to argue from stakeholder view: either student's own position or caricature. No competing concerns. Map missing.
C: Communication
The student expresses and organizes ideas in multiple forms. The student adapts communication to different audiences. The student uses conventions, terminology and vocabulary relevant to the discipline.
- 7–8 (Exemplary): Map visually clear; narrative confident. Position Paper voice genuinely matches stakeholder. Vocabulary precise. Citations clean. Roundtable: opens crisply, engages substantively, makes clear negotiation move. AI Doc clearly written.
- 5–6 (Proficient): Map mostly clear with logical narrative. Paper voice mostly matches; minor slips. Vocabulary precise most of time. Roundtable solid; some responses lack depth.
- 3–4 (Developing): Map partially clear; narrative rough. Paper voice inconsistent. Vocabulary errors. Roundtable restates opening; minimal engagement.
- 1–2 (Limited): Map unclear or missing narrative. Paper voice absent. Beginner vocabulary. Roundtable minimal.
Reporting format. Each strand is reported as its own band score (e.g., "K/U 7, T/T 6, C 7"). Not summed. The triplet IS the grade.
AI Documentation
Required in every class. If you use the Hydrologist, Stakeholder Voice, Source Evaluator, Skeptic, or any other AI tool, the AI Documentation Template is required. B7 students also document the Boodle Build process: what design choices you made when constructing your stakeholder's bot, which iterations felt authentic, which the bot got wrong when peer-tested. The Boodle Build documentation is a separate AI Doc artifact submitted alongside the Position Paper.