On this Thanksgiving Day, I am thankful for how student journalism programs across this country prepare their graduates for real life. Districts cutting their journalism programs need to hear this story.

This week I was visited by two former student editors. As a journalism adviser I know about the study “Journalism Kids Do Better” and often hear about how successful those high school j students are in college. I hear every year from former students who are excelling in college.

This week I was reminded of something much more. Neither of these former students were able to attend college out of high school, but both of them credited their study of journalism in high school with having helped them secure good jobs in a tough economy.

Student #1 was a photo editor and after graduation applied at a new Target store going up in the area. She interviewed to be a cashier. Not only did she get a job (she says because of the communication skills she learned from interviewing numerous people), she was actually put in charge of the new photo lab and setting up the entire operation. She subsequently moved on to set up other stores around the state. She has now changed careers and is a corrections officer, but she credits those same communications skills with her successful interactions with her employer, her coworkers and the inmates.

Student #2 could not continue her education because she had a baby just a year out of high school. She too credits her communications skills with landing her current job. She is an animal research assistant for a major medical company and, because of her journalism experience, is now the editor of their division newsletter. She shared that getting to tell her bosses they need to get their articles in and meet deadlines is a highlight of the job.

The skill to get a decent paying job without a college diploma and job security – that’s what the journalism program gave these students – and in this economy that is truly a reason to be thankful.

As my colleague and good friend Jan Leach keeps rightfully reminding me, the toughest choices we make are about questions of right versus right.

That thought is also at the core of an online ethics course for scholastic and collegiate media teachers I teach for the first time this fall.

And I wonder if it is also at the core of trying to bridge what seems to be a growing gap between media advisers and school administrators.

Illinois journalism adviser Randy Swikle said it well many times: on what can We Agree?

To me, the core principles we should be able to agree on include accuracy, completeness, transparency and honesty, all in pursuit of truth. To achieve those I would add the educational values of critical thinking, decision-making, responsibility and civic engagement.

I am sure there are more we might have in common or might be able to agree upon.

What do you think?

What would you add? Share your thoughts below. It might make a difference.

We continue to raise  the question, borrowed partially from a recent ethics workshop at Kent State University: What Values?

What value is there in prior review by anyone outside the student media staff? Even if administrators can claim some sort of legal allowance stating they can, what are the ethical and educational  values indicating they should? Who gains? Who is harmed? What elements of the school mission are fulfilled? How does the action serve truth and accuracy?

Along this line is a relatively new upshot on prior review (maybe not new, but certainly new to this timeframe): The superintendent as publisher; the principal as editor and the adviser as assistant adviser.

The students: certainly not getting a journalism education.

We would again ask: What is the educational value? How does this address the greater good? Who benefits? Who is harmed? What are students learning about the values of a school system that removes them from the process of critical thinking and decision making –  and also puts their teacher and principal in legal harm’s way?

What values – educational or otherwise – are at play?

Speaking of What Values, those teachers interested in lesson plans to address journalism ethics and discussions on online ethics have a free source.

The plans are available for high schools to supplement Kent State-Poynter What Values? workshop Sept. 17. Download materials at the workshop site by scrolling down to the lesson plan button. You can also follow the discussions on online journalism ethics from the workshop.

In the ongoing discussion on the Obama education speech, one JEA member suggested the press provided too much of a platform for fringe opinions instead of balanced reporting.

While that may be, I’d like to suggest something H. L. Hall always stresses as important: digging.

All too often, in commercial media and in scholastic media we see too much surface reporting and not enough digging for background and perspective. Digging would add substantial answers to the why and the how elements of news.

Frankly, there has been just too little of this type of reporting lately – in commercial and scholastic media.

So, let’s see what scholastic media can show everyone: how to really report the Obama speech story like no one else can.

Let’s see some digging:

• Why would schools back off running the President’s speech?

• Why would parents oppose (or support) their children hearing it?

• Who (if anyone) has used the Internet and other communication to spread lies/truth about the speech’s purpose? How can the audience tell?

• What does this say (if anything) about schools’ willingness to provide a chance for students to ask questions? Has this been an ongoing process? What is the historical perspective?

• What does the furor around this speech say about a school’s willingness to trust its students to think critically? Do school officials even see this as a factor? If not a factor, what drove their decision, one way or another?

• What does a school’s reaction (or a community’s reaction) in this instance say about their willingness to confront challenges from any future viewpoint?

Can scholastic media reporters find sources —  and maybe even answers — for these questions?

You betcha.

If they dig.

Which brings up another point H.L. likes to raise: Credibility. If we – commercial or scholastic media – do not show people we still can dig for answers, verify information and synthesize it into meaningful reporting, we cannot complain when people challenge our credibility.

We have it damaged it ourselves.