The following 10 Anchor Papers represent a range of score points and are used in conjunction with the rubrics to assess student responses.

Score for Anchor Paper #1: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Fragments of a basic idea are presented (make lots of money; wouldn't make as much money), but the idea is general and incomplete.

Score for Anchor Paper #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Although fragments of ideas are provided (more people; make more money), the ideas are skeletal and incomplete.

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of why the General Assembly would support building a stadium in a densely populated area. A complete basic idea (if you have more people you get more business then you make more money) is provided with a little support (good for the economy).

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of why the General Assembly would support building a stadium in a densely populated area. Basic ideas are presented (easier to get to for a majority of people; wouldn't pollute the area if it already is; more unemployed people are around cities that can be hired).

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of why the General Assembly would support building a stadium in a densely populated area. Basic ideas (with more people around more people will go {and} they would make a lot of money; won't have to drive too much) are provided with a little support (less people around to go means less money).

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of why the General Assembly would support building a stadium in a densely populated area. Concepts are accurate and supported (more people would go; the economy in the cities is better; tourists are most likely to visit the city). Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is provided through application of analysis and evaluation (better because of businesses and factories; more likely to go) and compare and contrast (Marylanders who live in lightly populated areas would be more likely to go into the city than would be city people to go into lightly populated areas).

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of why the General Assembly would support building a stadium in a densely populated area. Concepts are accurate and supported (the people that live near would be attracted to it; in places farther out in the country there could be hills and mountains; many people are worried that soon all of the farmland will be gone). Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through the application of analysis and evaluation (it looks fun; building stadiums out there would not make {farmland} go any slower) and cause-and-effect reasoning (hills and mountains make it harder and more expensive to build).

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of why the General Assembly would support building a stadium in a densely populated area. Accurate concepts are supported (money made from ticket sales; less populated areas are underdeveloped; more people can reach the stadium faster). The application of analysis and evaluation (harder to build in less populated areas because they are underdeveloped; faster because of more residences in the area; easily because of city transportation) shows some evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Score for Anchor Paper #9: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of why the General Assembly would support building a stadium in a densely populated area. Concepts are accurate and well supported (more people will buy tickets; the stadiums will make more money and it will improve the state's economy; cities are already developed; the people in the city would probably support the construction and will vote for the Assembly members). Powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated by insightful and extensive application of analysis and cause-and-effect reasoning (people will buy food and merchandise which can be taxed so the government will make money; new roads won't be needed and no more of the environment will be destroyed; those votes could make the difference between winning and losing the next election).

Score for Anchor Paper #10: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of why the General Assembly would support building a stadium in a densely populated area. Accurate concepts (good for the economy; geographically would affect more people; politically it is a good career move) are well supported. Extensive application of analysis, evaluation, and cause-and-effect reasoning (tourists; gifts shops and businesses; people living there would be able to get jobs because of the booming economy; closer to home to many; make more people happy and get more votes) demonstrates powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Additional Scored Student Responses