Romeo and Juliet: Cut One String

This is a ready-to-teach unit built around a String Theory board. Like the Great Gatsby unit, it is written in Understanding by Design (backward design) at the unit level, and the daily sequence follows gradual release (“I do / we do / you do”). The two units share a template, a vocabulary, and a set of ground rules, so a department that runs both teaches the tool once.

The organizing task is a causation argument. By Day 5 every student picks one string on their board and argues that if it were cut, the lovers live. The board is built to make that argument possible, and the play is unusually good at making it hard: the Prologue tells you the ending in its first fourteen lines, and then the play spends five acts showing you a dozen moments where it could have gone otherwise.

Stage 1: Desired results

Enduring understandings

Students will understand that:

• A tragedy is a chain, not a single event. Each link is a choice somebody made or a message that did not arrive, and a reader who can name the links can argue about which one mattered.
• Characters act inside institutions (a family, a court, a church, a feud) that make some choices easy and others nearly impossible. Where a character sits on that map explains behavior that looks irrational from outside it.
• Pacing is an argument. Shakespeare’s source took months; the play takes under a week. The compression is a choice, and it changes what the tragedy is about.
• There is a difference between what a text states, what it implies, and what a reader infers. All three are legitimate, and keeping them apart is the whole discipline of close reading.

Essential questions

• Who is responsible for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet? Is “everyone” an answer or an evasion?
• The Prologue calls them “star-cross’d.” Does the play believe in fate, or does it show us choices and call them fate?
• Why does Shakespeare tell us the ending before the play begins? What kind of suspense is left?
• Does the feud actually end? What, exactly, does the “glooming peace” cost?

Standards (Common Core ELA-Literacy)

• RL.9-10.1: cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from it.
• RL.9-10.3: analyze how complex characters develop, interact with other characters, and advance the plot.
• RL.9-10.5: analyze how an author’s choices about structure, the order of events, and the manipulation of time create tension, mystery, or surprise.
• W.9-10.1: write arguments to support claims, with valid reasoning, relevant evidence, and a fairly treated counterclaim.
• SL.9-10.4 / SL.9-10.5: present findings clearly; make strategic use of digital media.

States outside Common Core: this unit maps onto TEKS English I (§110.36 c.4/c.5), Florida BEST ELA.9.R.1 and R.3, and Virginia SOL 9.4. Swap the codes in the header and the unit is unchanged.

Stage 2: Assessment evidence

Summative, part one: the board

Each student (or pair) submits one String Theory board, which must contain at least the following:

Every claim on every card carries a Basis value: Stated in the text, Implied, or My interpretation. This field is the spine of the unit. A board where everything is “Stated in the text” has not been read carefully; a board where everything is “My interpretation” is not an analysis of this play.

Every string carries a Significance note in one sentence. A string with no Significance is decoration, and is graded as absent.

Every image or media item carries a License and an Attribution. This is a gate rather than a rubric row; see the ground rules below.

Summative, part two: the “cut one string” argument

A one-page written argument, due after Day 5. The student names one string on their own board (a results_in between two scenes, a responsible_for from a character to the ending, a threatens, a mentors, a works_for, any string at all) and argues that without it, Romeo and Juliet survive the week. The argument must cite the play by act, scene, and line, and it must answer the obvious counterclaim: the Prologue says they were doomed from the start, so what does cutting a string change?

The Significance note on the chosen string is the rough draft of the thesis. That is by design, and students should be told so on Day 2.

Formative

• Day 1 exit ticket: one completed Character card, with a correctly assigned Basis on every field.
• Day 3 peer audit: students swap boards and flag any string missing a Significance, any claim they believe is mis-classified on Basis, and any break in the causal chain (a scene with nothing causing it and nothing it causes).
• Day 4 Timeline check: a screenshot of the Timeline view with the play’s events placed across its four and a half days, Sunday morning to Thursday dawn.

Rubric (4 points per row, 20 total)

Before you start: media, citation and AI ground rules

Set these rules before the first image goes onto a board, not after. Once thirty students have attached two hundred pictures, retrofitting attribution is a cleanup rather than a lesson, and it will not happen. Twenty minutes of Day 0, or the tail of the period before the unit begins, is the whole cost. The Gatsby unit walks the License dropdown value by value; what follows is the same material in the form this play needs.

Use the License dropdown as the mini-lesson

Every media item in String Theory carries License, Attribution and Source fields, and the License dropdown offers exactly seven values. Walk the list on the projector, because students will be choosing from it all unit.

The contrast worth teaching: one play, four hundred years of pictures

Romeo and Juliet is a good vehicle for this because the play is older than copyright and almost every picture of it is not.

• The text is public domain everywhere. Quote it freely, put a passage on a card, print a scene.
• Paintings from the 1800s (Hayez, Dicksee, Ford Madox Brown, Leighton, Waterhouse, and dozens less famous) are public domain, and in the US a faithful photograph of a two-dimensional public-domain painting is public domain as well. Wikimedia Commons states this on each item page. This is the richest free image source any unit in this catalog has, and it is also an archive of how other readers saw these characters, which is the point of the supplement below.
• The films are fully in copyright. A still of Leonard Whiting, Leonardo DiCaprio or Douglas Booth is All Rights Reserved, and “it’s for school” is an argument, not a permission.
• A photograph of “Juliet’s balcony” in Verona belongs to whoever took it, and the balcony itself was added to the Casa di Giulietta in the twentieth century for the tourists. That last fact is worth a minute on its own: a student who finds it has just done the kind of source-checking the unit is for.

Send students somewhere good. Wikimedia Commons and the open collections of the major art museums will cover nearly everything this unit needs, and each states a license on the item page. A short whitelist makes most of the Unknown problem disappear before it starts.

Fair use, said honestly

Fair use is a four-factor balancing test: the purpose of the use, the nature of the original, how much is used, and the effect on the market for it. Educational context helps under the first factor. It does not decide the question, and it is not a checkbox. Students should reach for Fair Use rarely and be able to say which factors they are relying on.

One thing that is specific to this tool and genuinely matters: a String Theory project can be published to a public link. A board seen by one class of thirty is a very different fair-use posture from the same board on the open web. Decide, as a class and in advance, whether boards get published at all. If any will be, hold those to a stricter standard: public domain and Creative Commons only, no fair-use claims. A project can publish the whole project or only the boards you pick, and what a published board hides never leaves the server.

AI use: three separate questions, decided in writing

Do not let these collapse into a single “no AI” or “AI is fine.” They have different answers, and this unit’s supplement takes a position on the first one, so decide it before the supplement rather than during it.

1. AI-generated images. A student writes a description of Juliet and generates a portrait from it. The supplement below offers this as one of two paths, because it makes a student commit to how they see a character instead of borrowing how a painter or a casting director did. If your school permits it, require the item to be labeled: “AI-generated, [tool], [date]” in Attribution, and the prompt in the description. For License, have students check what the tool’s terms actually say about output and set it accordingly; if they cannot establish that, the image is an unresolved item like any other and comes off the board. The issue is provenance and honesty, which is separate from copyright. If your school does not permit it, the supplement’s other path carries the same lesson.
2. AI-generated analysis. A chatbot writes the Significance notes, assigns the Basis values, or picks the string to cut. This guts the assignment, and it is worth saying plainly: the Significance note, the Basis judgment and the causation argument are the thinking being assessed. Everything else on the card is transcription.
3. AI as a study aid. A student paraphrases a speech, looks up what “a man of wax” means, or checks whether a line says what they think it says. This is usually fine, and drawing the line explicitly is what makes the other two rules credible. Early Modern English is where students most want the help, and a blanket ban they consider unreasonable is a ban they route around silently.

About the app itself: the only AI feature a student can reach in String Theory is the Appearance dialog’s “Generate with AI” tab, which hands you a prompt to run in your own AI tool and paste back, and what it produces is a skin: colors, fonts, density. It generates no images and writes no analysis. Any AI content on a student’s board arrived from outside the app, so the policy needs to be about the tools students bring, not about anything they can click here.

Citation, and one limitation to disclose up front

Source cards plus the per-media license and attribution fields feed the Sources view, which assembles a bibliography as a by-product of building the board. Show students this on Day 1 so they understand why the fields are not busywork.

Be straight with them about the limit: the Sources view is not MLA. It renders a readable one-line citation per source, not a standards-compliant MLA or APA entry. If your department requires MLA 9, students will reformat the list by hand, and they should hear that at the start of the unit rather than the night before it is due.

Make attribution a gate, not a rubric row

Any board submitted with an attached media item marked Unknown, or with a blank Attribution, is returned unmarked rather than marked down. Attribution is a condition of submission in the same way a name at the top of a paper is.

The gate is not a trap, because there is always a way through it. By the deadline every attached image is in one of three states: its license was determined, or the student is making a Fair Use claim they can defend on the factors, or the image is not on the board. “I could not determine the rights to this photograph” is a real and creditable research finding. It is simply a finding recorded on the card, not a license, and it resolves to the third option.

Stage 3: Learning plan

Day 1: Two houses (I do)

Start with the institutions, not the lovers. Create two Group / Institution cards on the projector, House of Capulet and House of Montague, Type = Family, and fill in Purpose for each. The Purpose field is the first Basis argument of the unit: the play never says what the feud is about. “Ancient grudge” and “new mutiny” is all the Prologue gives. A student who writes “a land dispute” has written My interpretation, and should mark it so.

Then build Juliet with the class. Role = Protagonist, Characterization = Round, dynamic, Status, What they want (and watch how it changes between 1.3 and 3.5; that is the Development field). Do the Basis move explicitly:

• “Juliet is thirteen” is Stated in the text. Capulet says she “hath not seen the change of fourteen years” (1.2), and the Nurse dates her birthday to Lammas Eve (1.3).
• “Lady Capulet was about Juliet’s age when she had her” is Implied. “I was your mother much upon these years that you are now a maid” (1.3) does the arithmetic for you without stating the number.
• “Juliet is the more decisive of the two lovers” is My interpretation. A defensible one (she proposes marriage in 2.2; she takes the potion alone in 4.3), but it is a reading, and the field exists so a student can make it honestly rather than smuggle it in as fact.

Students: build Romeo and Tybalt independently, and string each to their house with member_of. The exit ticket is one completed card.

Day 2: Strings across the wall (we do)

Introduce the string as an argument, not a line, and lay the board out so the houses are physically apart: Capulets on one side, Montagues on the other. Build the first cross-house string together, Romeo loves Juliet, and write its Significance out loud as a class. Then Tybalt threatens Romeo (1.5, with Capulet holding him back), and Tybalt kills Mercutio.

Now the question the layout was built for: who stands between the houses? Release students to add Mercutio, Benvolio, the Nurse, Friar Laurence, Paris, the Prince and Lady Capulet, and to string them. Push on where each one sits. Mercutio is not a Montague; he is family_of the Prince, which is why his death turns a brawl into a matter of state. Paris is family_of the Prince too. The Nurse works_for the Capulets and loves Juliet, and those two strings pull against each other in 3.5. The Friar mentors Romeo and marries the lovers hoping to end the feud, which makes him responsible_for the chain in a way students will want to argue about.

Push on precision. knows is almost always the wrong string. wants, threatens, betrays, works_for, mentors, foil_of say something. Ask each student to defend one foil_of in particular: Mercutio and Romeo on love, Tybalt and Benvolio on a drawn sword, or the Nurse and the Friar as the two adults the lovers trust.

Add Rosaline as a Character with Role = Other. She never appears, and she is the reason Romeo is at the Capulet feast at all. A character with no lines and a string into the inciting incident is a good first lesson in what a board can show that a cast list cannot.

Discussion prompt: Which characters have strings into both houses? Make a list. It is the Friar, the Nurse, the Prince, Mercutio, Paris, and (after 2.6) Romeo and Juliet themselves. Then ask what happens to every person on that list by the end of the play.

Tell students today that the Significance note on any string may turn out to be the thesis of their Day 5 argument, so they should write each one as if it might.

Day 3: The chain (you do, with audit)

Students build at least eight Scene / Plot point cards and connect them with results_in strings into a single chain. The play’s spine, which they should discover rather than be handed:

1. The street brawl (1.1) results_in the Prince’s decree that the next breach is death.
2. Romeo’s longing for Rosaline results_in his going to the Capulet feast (1.2, 1.5).
3. The feast results_in the balcony scene and the secret marriage (2.2, 2.6).
4. Tybalt’s challenge and Mercutio’s death (3.1) results_in Romeo killing Tybalt.
5. Tybalt’s death, under the decree, results_in banishment.
6. Capulet’s decision to marry Juliet to Paris on Thursday (3.4), and then to move it to Wednesday (4.2), results_in the Friar’s potion plan.
7. The plague quarantine of Friar John (5.2) results_in the letter never reaching Mantua.
8. Balthasar’s report of Juliet’s “death” (5.1) results_in the tomb (5.3).

Each results_in needs a Significance that says how, in one sentence, without the word “because.” That constraint is harder than it sounds, and it is what forces the sentence to name a mechanism rather than restate the sequence.

Objects come in today: the Friar’s letter, the potion, the apothecary’s poison, and Romeo’s dagger are the obvious four. String each to the scene it decides. The letter is the best card on the board, because it is an object whose absence is the cause, and students should string it results_in the tomb with a Significance that explains how nothing arriving can do so much.

Themes: fate versus choice, haste, and love as a form of violence (or violence as a form of love; let them pick the direction and defend it). Every Theme must have at least two strings in, with develops, embodies or symbolizes, and a Significance that says how, without the word “represents.”

Reiterate the media rules today. This is the period when image use spikes, since Scene and Object cards invite pictures in a way Character cards do not. Restate the License and Attribution requirement before students start hunting, and remind them that a card can describe an image in words instead of carrying one.

Second half of the period is the peer audit. Swap boards and flag three things: a string with no Significance, a Basis value you would dispute, and a break in the chain. Give the last ten minutes to defending flagged claims to the person who flagged them.

Day 4: Four days (the structural move)

This is the day that is hard to teach without the tool, and it is the reason the unit exists.

Students have been filling in Where in the text and When (in the story’s world) on each Scene card. The play dates itself with unusual care: Capulet names Monday aloud in 3.4 and sets the wedding for Thursday, then pulls it to Wednesday; the Nurse puts Juliet’s birthday “a fortnight and odd days” from Lammas, so the week is in mid-July; and the Friar’s potion runs “two and forty hours.” Working backward and forward from those anchors, the brawl is Sunday morning, the feast Sunday night, the marriage Monday afternoon, Tybalt dead within the hour, the banishment that evening, the potion Tuesday night, Juliet found Wednesday morning, and the tomb before dawn on Thursday.

Agree on a convention as a class: pick a year and a Sunday in mid-July (the play names neither), and record it on a sticky note on the board as My interpretation. Use the Timeline position field to order scenes that fall on the same day. Then switch to the Timeline view.

The whole play fits in a strip four and a half days wide. Ask: Shakespeare’s source, Arthur Brooke’s 1562 poem, spread the same story across months, with the lovers married and meeting in secret for a long stretch before Tybalt dies. Shakespeare threw that away. What does the compression do to the question of blame? Is a decision made in an afternoon the same kind of decision as one made over a season? When Capulet moves the wedding up a day in 4.2, how much of the tragedy is in that single line?

Pair it with the Prologue. The audience knew the ending before the first scene. If the what is never in doubt, the only suspense the play has left is the how fast, and the Timeline is a picture of exactly that.

Assign: each student adds one foreshadows string from an early scene to a late one (Romeo’s “some consequence yet hanging in the stars” in 1.4 is the obvious first; make them find a second) and defends it in the Significance field. Then each student chooses the string they intend to cut and writes its Significance as a draft thesis.

Day 5: Cut one string (presentation and seminar)

Students give four-minute board walkthroughs in small groups. Each one names the string they would cut, shows where it sits in the chain, and says what happens to the rest of the board without it. The group’s job is to find the hole: name the other string that gets the lovers to the tomb anyway.

Close with a whole-class seminar on whichever string drew the most disagreement. In practice it is one of three: the Friar’s decision to marry them in secret, Capulet moving the wedding to Wednesday, or Mercutio drawing on Tybalt. All three are defensible, and the best seminars end with a student arguing that the real string is the one between the two Group cards, which nobody can cut because no single character holds it.

Written follow-up: the one-page argument described in Stage 2, due at the next class. The Significance note is the thesis; the board is the outline; the counterclaim is the Prologue.

Supplement: faces for a play that gives none (two paths, your choice or theirs)

Shakespeare describes almost nobody. The most detailed physical description in the play belongs to a character who never appears. That gap is the lesson, and this supplement offers two ways through it. Pick one for the whole class, or let each student choose. Both end in the same written reflection and both are graded on the same thing.

What the text actually gives you

Before anyone finds or makes an image, students need to know exactly what the play hands them. Have them find these themselves; the table is the answer key, not the handout.

Three questions fall straight out of it:

• Why does the only full description go to a character the audience never sees, and why is it a joke?
• Romeo describes Juliet entirely in terms of light. What does it mean to be in love with someone whose face you cannot report?
• Every age the play gives is the age of a woman, or an old man remembering. Whose youth is the play interested in?

Path A: find a face someone else made

Four hundred years of painters have already answered the question, and almost all of their answers are in the public domain. Students go to Wikimedia Commons (or a museum’s open collection) and find a painting of their character or of a scene that character is in.

Then the work starts. For each image, the student attaches it to the card with a complete License, Attribution and Source, and writes a short annotation in the description that separates what the painter took from the play from what the painter supplied. Dicksee’s 1884 Romeo and Juliet puts the lovers on the balcony at dawn, kissing; the play gives the dawn parting (3.5, not 2.2) and the painter chose the rest. Hayez’s 1823 Last Kiss dresses them as Renaissance Italians; the play never says what anyone wears. Waterhouse’s 1898 Juliet gives her auburn hair and a string of pearls, and the text gives neither.

String the painting to the scene it depicts with based_on, and put the gap in the Significance. A student who can say “the painter supplied the hair, the dress, the light and the kiss, and the play supplied the dawn” has done close reading on a picture.

Why this path is worth running even where AI is permitted: it teaches that every image of a character is somebody’s reading, including the famous ones, and it gets students into a real archive with real license statements. It is also the path with the least setup and no policy question attached.

Path B: write the face, then generate it

If AI images are permitted (the school’s policy is the gate, not this plan), the student becomes the painter.

1. Write the description first, from the text. The student writes a physical description of their character in prose, as detailed as they like, and beside every sentence marks the same Basis value the board uses: Stated in the text (Juliet’s age), Implied (Lady Capulet’s), or My interpretation (everything about Mercutio). With this play, most sentences will be the third, and that is the discovery. The student has to decide what Tybalt looks like, and the play will not help them, and they have to own that.
2. Generate the portrait from their own words. The description is the prompt. Nothing else goes in: no “in the style of,” no film reference, no painter’s name.
3. The prompt goes in the media item’s Description field, and the Attribution reads “AI-generated, [tool], [date].” The prompt is the student’s reading, written down, and a grader can see which sentences came from the play and which the student supplied.
4. Compare across the room. Put four students’ Mercutios side by side. They will not match, and the question is why, traced back through the prompts. A class where every Romeo looks like the same actor has stopped reading and started remembering a film.

Why this path is worth the policy conversation: it is the one exercise in the unit where a student has to say how they see the character rather than how a painter, a director or a casting agent did, and it makes the Basis field bite, because a guess the text does not support produces a picture that is visibly not in the play.

Running both paths in one room

The best version of this supplement is a mixed class, because the Day 5 projector slide writes itself: a Waterhouse Juliet beside a student-generated Juliet, with the painter’s annotation beside the student’s prompt. Both are readings. One is more than a century old and hangs in a gallery, and that does not make it more faithful to the text.

Whichever path a student takes, the written reflection is the same and it is what gets graded: what did the play give you, what did you (or the painter) supply, and how do you know which is which?

Ground rules specific to this supplement

• Grade the annotation or the description, not the image. Image quality is a function of the tool or the painter and belongs nowhere in the grade.
• On Path B, check the output against a real person. Generators converge on famous faces, and for this play there are three films’ worth of them. If a portrait comes out recognizably as a particular actor, regenerate it. A likeness of a real person is a problem the “it’s AI” label does not solve.
• Keep descriptions to what the text supports, and mark the rest. The point is not to forbid invention; it is to label it.
• The no-AI version is Path A, and it is a complete lesson on its own. Nobody loses the supplement because of a district policy.

Differentiation and accommodations

• Scaffolded entry: provide a partially built board with the two Group cards and eight Character cards named but empty, and the first three Scene cards in place. Students fill fields and extend the chain rather than deciding who matters.
• Extension for advanced students: require a second chain. Brooke’s 1562 poem is public domain and online; have students build the same eight scenes for the source and string the differences with based_on, then argue what Shakespeare’s compression bought. Alternatively, have them string the Prince’s two public judgments (1.1 and 5.3) and argue whether he, too, belongs on the responsible_for list.
• IEP / 504: the board is a visual-spatial alternative to the traditional character essay. Reduce the card minimums rather than the field requirements; a complete chain of six scenes beats a broken chain of twelve. The one-page argument can be delivered as the Day 5 walkthrough with notes, if writing is the accommodation.
• ELL: Early Modern English is a second hurdle on top of the first. Permit a facing-page modern paraphrase as a study aid (this is the Day 0 “AI as a study aid” question, answered in advance), accept quoted evidence without paraphrase, and let the Pin caption, one short phrase, stand in for a paragraph.
• Students who have seen a film first: nearly all of them, in practice. Ask them to mark every claim they cannot find in the text as My interpretation and to notice how many came from the screen. That is the Basis lesson arriving on its own.
• Absent students: the board persists and syncs, so a returning student picks up their own board rather than reconstructing a poster.

Materials

To run the unit you will need:

• The play, any edition. The Folger text is free online with line numbers; a class set of sticky flags helps on paper.
• One String Theory project per student or pair, on the Literary Analysis template pack.
• A projector for Days 1, 2, 4 and 5.
• A printed rubric.
• A worked exemplar. There is not yet a Romeo and Juliet demo project in String Theory. The Great Gatsby demo is built on the same template with the same fields and the same Basis discipline, and it shows a class what “finished” looks like on Day 1. If you build your own exemplar board first, keep its readings arguable; it is a model, not an answer key.
• A one-page handout of the media rules, including the approved image-source whitelist, the AI policy, and which supplement path (or both) is in play. Hand it out on Day 0 and put it on the wall.

Notes for the teacher

Setup. Create the project, choose the Literary Analysis pack, and the vocabulary follows: cards read Character, Group / Institution, Setting, Object / Symbol, Scene / Plot point, and Theme / Device rather than the generic Person / Organization / Place / Object / Event / Concept. Nothing needs configuring.

Lay the board out as the city. Capulets on one side, Montagues on the other, the Prince at the top, the Friar’s cell and the tomb between. The arrangement is not decoration; it is the argument about who stands between the houses, and a student whose board shows it has understood the play’s social geography before writing a word.

Pin caption is not a name field. When set, it replaces the entity’s name on the card face, so it should say why the card matters: “the kinsman who answers an insult with steel,” not “Tybalt”; “the letter that never left Verona,” not “Friar’s letter.” Anything past roughly fifty characters stops fitting a card cleanly. Students need telling this twice.

Dates on a play that names only weekdays. The Timeline needs a calendar date on each Scene card, and the play gives weekdays and a month. Settle the class convention on Day 4 and write it down on the board itself as My interpretation. A student who objects that the play never says what year it is has made the right objection, and the sticky note is the answer.

Let the Basis argument happen. The three values will produce disagreement in the peer audit, and that disagreement is the most valuable ten minutes in the unit. Resist arbitrating it.

On “everyone is responsible.” Students will reach for it by Day 3. It is true and it is not an argument. The “cut one string” task exists to force a choice, and the Prince’s line that “all are punish’d” is the counterclaim they have to beat, not the conclusion they get to rest on.

On classroom accounts: each student needs their own account, and String Theory accounts are for people 13 and older. Most 9th graders are 14 or 15, and a student who is young for the grade is usually 13 by the fall, but not always, so check before the unit starts rather than at sign-up; a student who cannot yet hold an account pairs with one who can. Each account is its own workspace, and the free plan allows two projects and 250 entities per workspace, which is comfortably more than this unit needs. Publishing is per project and can be narrowed to the boards you pick; see the ground rules above for why that matters to the publishing decision as well as to collection.

Collecting the boards. On free accounts, each student publishes their project and sends you the link, so the publishing rules above apply to every board you collect. Our Classroom plan replaces that with a class link. You make a class for the unit and hand out its link. Each student opens it, signs in to their own free account, and picks the project they built for the unit, or starts it there. The project stays theirs (no one but you can see it unless they publish it), stops counting against their two free projects, and shows up on your roster, where you can open it read-only until the class ends. You can’t edit it, and you can’t see anything else in their account. Classroom is for students 13 and older, like the rest of String Theory.

The media rules are not an add-on. Media Literacy sits inside the standards this unit already claims, and with this play the license question and the interpretation question are the same question: every picture of Juliet is somebody’s reading, and the License field is where a student first has to say whose.