School Improvement in Maryland
Public Release Item Scoring Information Return

Goal 1 Political Systems

Expectation 1.2 The student will evaluate how the United States government has maintained a balance between protecting rights and maintaining order.

Indicator 1.2.3 The student will evaluate the impact of governmental decisions and actions that have affected the rights of individuals and groups in American society and/or have affected maintaining order and/or safety.

Assessment Limits:

  • Presidential use of power and executive orders affecting rights, order, and/or safety.
  • National government agencies’ actions affecting rights, order, and/or safety.
  • State actions affecting rights, order, and/or safety.

Brief Constructed Response (BCR) Item - Released in 2005

Read the news headline below.

  • Describe ways that the state limits the privileges of people who own, drive, or ride in cars.
  • Should the state government have this power? Explain why or why not.
  • Include details and examples to support your answer.

Write your answer on the lines in your Answer Book.

The following 8 Anchor Papers represent a range of score points and are used in conjunction with the rubrics to assess student responses.

Anchor Paper #1

image of student response

Score for Anchor Paper #1: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: 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.


Anchor Paper #2

image of student response

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 concepts are provided (setting speed limits and fining them; the road would be unsafe), these ideas are not supported and, therefore, remain incomplete.


Anchor Paper #3

image of student response

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: 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.


Anchor Paper #4

image of student response

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: 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).


Anchor Paper #5

image of student response

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: 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).


Anchor Paper #6

image of student response

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: 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.


Anchor Paper #7

image of student response

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: 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).


Anchor Paper #8

image of student response

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: 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.


Brief Constructed Response (BCR) Rubric
Print: Scoring Rubric (pdf)
Score 4

This response shows understanding of the content, question, and/or problem. The response is insightful, integrates knowledge, and demonstrates powerful application.

  • The application shows powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills.
  • Concepts are accurate and well supported.
  • There are no misconceptions.
  • The response is comprehensive.
Score 3

This response shows some understanding of the content, question, and/or problem. The response includes appropriate application that demonstrates evidence of higher order thinking skills.

  • The application shows some evidence of higher order thinking skills.
  • Concepts are accurate and supported.
  • There are no interfering misconceptions.
  • The response may not develop all parts equally.
Score 2

This response shows knowledge of the content, question, and/or problem. The response is acceptable with some key ideas. The response shows little or no evidence of application.

  • The response includes some basic ideas.
  • The response provides little or no support.
  • There are minimal misconceptions.
Score 1

This response shows minimal knowledge of the content, question, and/or problem. The response is related to the question, but it is inadequate.

  • The response includes incomplete or fragmented ideas or knowledge.
  • There may be significant misconceptions.
Score 0

The response is completely incorrect or irrelevant. There may be no response.

Knowledge and Understanding indicate the degree to which the response reflects a grasp of the content, question, and/or problem presented in the stimulus. The response indicates mastery that progresses from knowledge to understanding.

Last Revised June 2001
/share/clg/xml/public_release/government/2005_123_gov13.xml