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. A fragment of a basic idea (citizens that don't want to will pick anybody, just to get it over with) is presented, but the idea is skeletal 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 basic ideas (the lower a person's annual income the less likely they have been to vote; get everyone's opinion) are provided, these ideas are general and incomplete.

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the potential effects of a mandatory voting law. Basic ideas (some people work and don't have time to vote; other people who just don't like the candidates who are running and don't feel the need to vote; they would just pick any random candidate to vote for) are presented. This response is adequate for a "2."

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the potential effects of a mandatory voting law. Basic ideas (this pattern of the higher a person's income, the more likely to vote needs to stop; we need everyones position in elections) are presented and provided with a little support (we would be able to hear the voice of the people).

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the potential effects of a mandatory voting law. Basic ideas (there would be a greater voter turn-out; could drastically change laws and elections) are provided with a little support (more true to the direct democracy idea that everyone has say so on an issue).

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the potential effects of a mandatory voting law. Concepts are accurate and supported (voter turnout would then be equal among all people; votes for a candidate are supposed to represent everyone). Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is provided through appropriate application of analysis and evaluation (it generally turns out being mostly middle aged people with a decent to high income; not young people just getting their first or second job) and cause-and-effect reasoning (as a result candidates work more on issues concerning them; candidates would have to work harder at appealing to everyone).

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the potential effects of a mandatory voting law. Concepts are accurate and supported (a person forced into it most likely won't take it seriously; a law can't force them to research the candidates). Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through the application of analysis and evaluation (make a smart decision; those who desire to vote and understand the campaign issues and what they feel America should progress into; those who aren't going to take it seriously just throw off the balance of the whole process).

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the potential effects of a mandatory voting law. Accurate concepts are supported (it is wrong not to use your power to vote; everyone should vote, no matter race, salary, or position). Appropriate application of analysis and evaluation (if you do not exercise your right to vote you are basically saying you do not want any power in your goverment; so many people accross the world who have no such power) and relevant historical reference (Ben Franklin quote) show some evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Score for Anchor Paper #9: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the potential effects of a mandatory voting law. Accurate concepts are well supported (the higher the income, the more likely to vote; citizens should be allowed to choose; some people do not have time to vote). Powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through the integrated application of cause-and-effect reasoning (could be because poor people are usually less educated, don't know the background of laws or candidates, or they must work), analysis and evaluation (working to feed the family may take priority; wide citizen participation is the core of our democratic process), and comparison and contrast (forcing people to vote implies totalitarian government; founding fathers worked laboriously to establish democracy).

Score for Anchor Paper #10: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the potential effects of a mandatory voting law. Accurate concepts (it would change voter turnout; many more people that have an annual income of $35,000 or under would vote) are well supported. Application of extended and integrated analysis, evaluation, and cause-and-effect reasoning (more issues addressed that concern lower income families; Medicaid, welfare, and inner city improvements and public education; poorer people are the ones who need the most government aid; these issues would become much more important in elections because candidates would have to appeal to all constituents) demonstrate powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Additional Scored Student Responses