The following 8 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 shows only minimal knowledge of the question. The student gives a couple of fragmented ideas related to the law-making process (if the law was important it would go…faster; don’t need to study it with the whole committee).

Score for Anchor Paper #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response shows only minimal knowledge. Some general and fragmented ideas related to the question are provided (take step; improve by…letting voters agree).

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the law-making process. A basic concept is given (could be improved by simply making it shorter). A key idea is then completed (instead of sending it to each house separately, allow both houses to review it at the same time).

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the question. The student specifically lists several of the steps involved in the law-making process (viewed by House of Representatives and Congress; president can either pass or veto). A valid suggestion for improving the process is then provided (attempting to speed up the process; doing away with a lot of the debating; takes the most time).

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the law-making process. Concepts are accurate and supported (laws about getting rid of racial injustices to {took} over a hundred years; laws for racial segragation and discrimination…rid of such as the literacy test and poll tax). Some evidence of higher order thinking is shown through analyzing that while things get done quickly in a dictatorship, the will of the people is often subverted and dissent not tolerated (fast, but people don’t have a say; if the do say anything, they get shot, tortured, and/or imprisoned), while the U.S. system puts a premium on listening to the will of the people (it may not be fast, but it doesn’t denie us what the laws are about).

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the law-making process. Accurate concepts support the assertion that Beecher was partially correct (one-hundred years is an over-statement; could be improved if Congressmen are well-informed; If lobbyists did not have as much control). The student shows some evidence of higher order thinking by using the example of Title IX to analyze the idea that “If it is hard to get ride of a law, most likely the job it was created for is not finished” (created to insure gender equity but many people believe it is done; there is still much dispute and gender inequality; therefore the law is obviously not ready to be ended).

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the law-making process. The student provides accurate and well-supported concepts (an entire quorum; debated for hours; policy committee; filibuster; conference committee; president who vetoes; 2/3 majority). This knowledge is integrated into an analysis of why such a system was originally created (this is what the framers intended; this is the competition; the checks and balances; without this all people would be dominated by the government and would not be dominating the government) which demonstrates powerful evidence of higher order thinking.

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the law-making process. Concepts are accurate and well supported. By using a highly effective example (to get effective desegregation laws…it took our country from the Civil War up to the 60s), the student not only evidences knowledge, but also powerful application. Additional higher order thinking is demonstrated through the insightful, knowledge-based analysis of divided government and a reasoned solution to the roadblocks set in place by the system (lawmakers must work together in order to compromise on issues instead of getting no accomplishments whatsoever as a result of gridlock).