The Refurbishing Program: Export, Reuse, or Certified Recycling
The technology student association at a suburban high school runs a device-refurbishing program and collects 48 donated laptops. Students find that 29 boot and can be repaired, 11 need parts averaging $35 each, and 8 are beyond repair. District IT will not allow refurbished machines on the network unless the drives are wiped to district standard and the device meets a minimum operating-system version; 14 otherwise working units fail that requirement. A local recycler offers $0.10 per pound and says it will certify destruction, but students cannot verify where material goes downstream. The club has $600, a parent who wants working laptops given directly to families, and a principal worried about data liability. Students propose shipping the unusable units to a school in another country. The teacher must guide the class toward a defensible decision that weighs environmental, economic, legal, and social impacts, and must decide what to assess from the project.
1. Evaluate the proposal to ship the unusable units abroad and recommend a defensible course of action, showing how the competing impacts are weighed.
Read the worked answer
Frame the decision with criteria - environmental harm, legal exposure, cost, and benefit to recipients - and score the options against them rather than debating preferences.
The export proposal fails on verifiability and harm transfer. Eight nonfunctional units have no reuse value, so shipping them is waste transport, not donation. Once they leave the country, the school cannot verify dismantling, and informal recycling commonly involves open burning and acid stripping, exposing workers and children to lead and brominated flame retardants. International waste-shipment rules and many destination-country regulations restrict such movements, and the school would retain reputational and possibly legal exposure. Transport emissions add impact with no offsetting benefit.
Better options, in order: (1) harvest usable components for teaching and for the 29 repairable units; (2) use the 11 parts-needing units as donors, weighing $35 against the $600 budget; (3) contract a certified recycler (R2 or e-Stewards) for the residue and demand serialized certificates listing downstream vendors; (4) revisit the 14 units that fail the OS requirement - an upgrade or lightweight Linux install may convert them to local reuse.
Local reuse is the strongest outcome if data can be sanitized and the district signs off, because it captures the social benefit without exporting harm.
2. What data-protection and ethical issues must the class resolve before any device leaves the building, and how should the teacher frame them?
Read the worked answer
The technical standard is not optional. No device leaves the program until storage is sanitized to a recognized standard (for example, NIST SP 800-88) or the drive is physically destroyed and the serial number logged. A chain-of-custody sheet should record who handled each unit, when, and what was done. The teacher should assume some donated machines contain personal data, because donors rarely wipe them.
Legal layers: district acceptable-use and data-governance policy governs school-owned devices; privacy law and state breach-notification rules create liability if data escape; FERPA is not the controlling statute for donated family laptops, but district policy may still apply once devices enter school custody. The principal's worry is legitimate.
Ethical layer, which is where the teaching is: compliance is a floor. Students should ask who bears the risk if a wipe fails, whether a family receiving a laptop understands its condition, and whether the program's convenience depends on someone else absorbing the hazard. Have them write the donation agreement and the sanitation checklist themselves, and defend each clause.
Decision rule for the class: no unit leaves the building without a documented sanitation record and a named owner of the next step.
3. Design the assessment for this project so that it captures the quality of students' reasoning rather than whether they chose the teacher's preferred option.
Read the worked answer
Assess the reasoning, not the verdict. A student can reach the defensible answer for weak reasons, so the evidence should show the analysis.
Task: a decision memo of about two pages plus an oral defense, containing:
- a stakeholder table naming who gains and who bears risk (recipients, students, district, recycler, downstream community);
- weighted criteria and a scored options matrix;
- at least two cited sources, one on e-waste handling and one on data sanitation or export rules;
- an explicit trade-off statement and a dissent section where a student may argue the losing option with evidence.
Rubric strands: problem framing, use of evidence, treatment of unintended consequences, and communication. Score analysis separately from the final recommendation so a well-argued minority position can earn full marks.
Also assess process: the chain-of-custody log and sanitation checklist are graded artifacts, not clerical extras, because they are where the legal and ethical reasoning becomes operational.
Avoid: grading on whether students picked the teacher's preferred option. The point of the case is that defensible decisions require evidence and acknowledged trade-offs, not that one answer is officially correct.