Score Level 1 Anchor Paper

This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Fragments of ideas are presented (keeping the driving age at 16; because there need to be some laws), but these ideas are skeletal and incomplete.

Score Level 1 Anchor Paper

This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Although fragments of basic concepts are provided (setting speed limits and fining them; the road would be unsafe), these ideas are not supported and, therefore, remain incomplete.

Score Level 2 Anchor Paper

This response shows knowledge of the state’s limitations on driver privileges. In addition to some basic ideas (go a certain speed limit; stop at red lights; intended for peoples’ safety), a key idea (the state government should be able to enforce these things, so people don’t die) is given.

Score Level 2 Anchor Paper

This response shows knowledge of the state’s limitations on driver privileges. Basic ideas are provided (speed limits; traffic cameras; pull over cars) and supported with examples (40 mph speed limit on 482; stop those who run red lights in Baltimore City; stop drunk drivers). The student also gives a key idea in the explanation of why the state government should have this power (only looking out for our safety; truly want what is best for us).

Score Level 3 Anchor Paper

This response shows some understanding of the state’s limitations on driver privileges. The concepts are accurate (making speed limits; giving tickets; making it illegal for drunk drivers). Some evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated through analysis (may be too big of a hassle for the federal government) and evaluation of the states’ different needs (New York or California may need harsher drunk driving laws, whereas Maryland might just need the speed limit lowered).

Score Level 3 Anchor Paper

This response shows some understanding of the state’s limitations on driver privileges. Correct limitations are provided (speed limit; driving age; traffic signs and lights; seatbelt and child seat laws; car lighting; random police searches). Through the analysis of why the state government should have this power, as opposed to the local government (driving even a few miles could mean a drastic change in driving laws) or the national government (could lead to the degradation of federalism), some evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated.

Score Level 4 Anchor Paper

This response shows understanding of the state’s limitations on driver privileges. Accurate concepts are supplied (valid driver’s license; fines; jail time). Powerful evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated through the recognition of the constitutional reasons why each state should have this power (considered one of the reserved powers; not denied by the constitution, but not given to the federal government). The student then uses extended analysis to argue that it is impractical for the federal government to monitor driving in each state (waste of time and resources) and that the states have adequately shouldered this responsibility in the past (have modified laws according to changing technology, population growth, fiscal necessity, and political reality).

Score Level 4 Anchor Paper

This response shows understanding of the state’s limitations on driver privileges. Several accurate limitations are provided (speed limits; seatbelts; outlawing drinking and driving) and supported (prevent harm to citizens). Through an extended analysis of the competing interests between civil liberties and public safety (promoting the general welfare) and a reasoned evaluation (limiting personal liberty to keep citizens from dying on public roads seems to be clearly one of these times), the student demonstrates powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills.