The following 16 Sample Student Responses represent a range of score points.

Score for Sample Student Response #1: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the principles of checks and balances. Accurate concepts are supported (one part doesn't have all the power; each branch can check the other; a law could take months). Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through the application of analysis and evaluation (can make passing laws a sluggish affair; each branch is a crucial pillar) and the weighing of competing interests (a slow process is easily outweighed by having protection for our rights; the time is worth the effort, and the effect is to protect our rights). Compare to Anchor Paper #6.

Score for Sample Student Response #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Although several fragments of basic ideas are presented (divides power; no one branch gets too much power; one branch could want more power), the fragments are skeletal, vague, and incomplete. Compare to Anchor Paper #2.

Score for Sample Student Response #3: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the principles of checks and balances. Accurate concepts are well supported (not allow the executive, legislative, or judicial branch to get too powerful; assures that no unconstitutional laws are kept; all of the fighting among the branches can take up a lot of time). Powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through integrated, extended application of analysis and evaluation (governed by the conservative or liberal leanings of the law makers; threatened to pack the court with more liberal justices, which the Constitution would allow; some things need to be done fast, like if we had a war; serve the people and are not limited to party lines) and effective use of relevant historical examples (Nixon; "New Deal" legislation).

Score for Sample Student Response #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the principles of checks and balances. Key ideas (Supreme Court demonstrated power over Congress because it shows that just because Congress makes a law and the President signs it, doesn't mean it will stay in effect; no branch can become too powerful; harder to make laws and keep them in effect) are provided with a little support (even though things take longer to get done, they get done right).

Score for Sample Student Response #5: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Fragments of basic ideas are presented (supreme checked up on the legislative and executive branches; so one branch does not have more power; the branches cannot do much), but the ideas are vague, skeletal, and incomplete. Compare to Anchor Paper #2.

Score for Sample Student Response #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the principles of checks and balances. Concepts are accurate and supported (make sure that no one part of the government is too powerful; if two out of the three branches say a bill is constitutional, but one says it is not, then the bill is either terminated or revised; Congress can override that veto with a vote). Appropriate application of analysis and evaluation (a way for the government to watch itself and make sure that everything is fair for everybody, like the majority rules, but minority rights are protected; we get laws that are fair and constitutional, so everyone wins) provides some evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Score for Sample Student Response #7: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the principles of checks and balances. Key ideas are presented (no one branch can gain too much power; everything is sure to be constitutional) and provided with a little support (they would be violating the First Amendment). Compare to Anchor Paper #4.

Score for Sample Student Response #8: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the principles of checks and balances. Concepts are accurate and well supported (judicial branch is limiting the power; no branch can get too much power; arguments between the branches). Powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through application of extended analysis and evaluation, integrated with effective use of relevant historical example and Supreme Court case law (Marbury v. Madison; President Andrew Jackson; Articles of Confederation).

Score for Sample Student Response #9: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Although fragments of basic ideas are given (limit the power of a single branch; all of the branches have some job to do; all power is not limited to one person), these ideas are skeletal and incomplete. Compare to Anchor Paper #2.

Score for Sample Student Response #10: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the principles of checks and balances. Concepts are accurate and supported (Supreme Court checks Congress and the president when it decides that the new law is unconstitutional; keeps any branch from acquiring too much power; legislative branch can override a veto with a 2/3 majority). Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through appropriate application of analysis and evaluation (a president can't destroy good laws just because one person doesn't like it; one branch could become tyrannical; our country could then become a dictatorship).

Score for Sample Student Response #11: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the principles of checks and balances. Key ideas are presented (one branch does not have more power than another; the Supreme Court rules the law unconstitutional - the judicial checking the legislative and executive; our government is constantly being reviewed). Compare to Anchor Paper #3.

Score for Sample Student Response #12: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the principles of checks and balances. Accurate concepts are well supported (each of the three branches has a role in checking each other's actions to balance power; allows for changes when a law becomes outdated/defective; process can take years). Insightful application of extended analysis and evaluation (if an unconstitutional law is passed, millions of citizens are subject to a bad law; the legislative branch argues among themselves about who will be affected, etc., often along party lines; the advantages of limiting the power far outweigh any disadvantages of a slow process), integrated with cause-and-effect reasoning (fine-tuning makes the final product better; if Congress had too much power this could lead to bad laws) and effective use of example (First Amendment; Texas v. Johnson), provides powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills. Compare to Anchor Paper #7.

Score for Sample Student Response #13: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Fragments of basic ideas are given (can't make unconstitutional laws that violate our rights; can't declare war without the approval of the Congress), but the ideas are skeletal and incomplete. Compare to Anchor Paper #1.

Score for Sample Student Response #14: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the principles of checks and balances. Key ideas (neither the judicial or the executive or the legislative branches become too powerful; they don't have enough power to do exactly what they want) are provided with a little support (if a president that doesn't know what he is doing had more power, like to both write and pass laws, then the whole nation would be in trouble). Compare to Anchor Paper #3.

Score for Sample Student Response #15: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the principles of checks and balances. Accurate concepts are supported (Congress passes the bill, but it must be approved; so that there is no corruption; they make it very hard for anything to get done). Appropriate application of analysis and evaluation (although it may seem that the judicial branch has the final say; if the different branches can't agree with each other, then few bills would ever become laws; it is better to have a government with equal power than a corrupt government where one branch could do whatever they wanted) provides some evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Score for Sample Student Response #16: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the principles of checks and balances. Concepts are accurate and supported (three separate bodies, each with the ability to, within limits, counter the actions of another; the time added to decision making within the government and the potential political duress). Application of comprehensive analysis and evaluation (judicial review ensures the government does not become iniquitous by a collaboration of one or more branches; protecting against the corruption seen so often in other countries while guaranteeing that every law that is passed is given complete evaluation; the value of that security far outweighs the potential schism of government and slow decision making caused by the separation of powers) provides powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills. Compare to Anchor Paper #8.

Anchor Papers used in scoring