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 is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Although an appropriate idea is provided (freedom of speech/press), the remainder of the response offers little support for why restricting government employees from speaking to the press should not be permitted.

Score for Anchor Paper #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. A few acceptable ideas are provided (violates first amendment; freedom of speech, religion and press).

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of issues involving free speech rights. The student presents basic ideas concerning freedom of speech and the press (violates employees first right as a citizen of US; press should be able to have information to help the citizens to know what is happening). Knowledge of constitutional rights provides some support (the constitution clearly states they are allowed; constitution is the supreme law of the land).

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of possible issues involving restrictions on free speech. A basic idea is provided (violate there first amendment rights). A key idea is then completed (should only be allowed to keep employees from talking to the press if it was a concern of national security) and supported by a relevant example (employee mentions that they have a big nuclear war head in one of there hangar’s).

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the possible negative consequences that could occur if free speech rights were restricted. Basic concepts are provided (freedom of speech; may indirectly affect the coverage by the press; to speak truthfully in complaint and petition against the government). Using historical references, some evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated through the inference that placing restrictions on these rights could have an unintended negative impact on the government (the government should...protect it fully in order to gain knowledge about public opinion; the Alien and Sedition Act that were short-lived during the first years of the nation; brought about complaints and was soon outlawed).

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the issues concerning restrictions placed on government employees' free speech rights. Accurate concepts are provided (restricting their first amendment rights; prevent leaks of sensitive information). Some evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated through analysis of the Pentagon Papers (would’ve been bad if it was before the war because then they would've known our plans; it also was a political scandal…scandals are distracting to important policy issues).

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the issues surrounding free speech restrictions. Accurate concepts supporting the student’s position that “it is perfectly acceptable for governments to restrict their employees from speaking to the press” are interwoven throughout the response. Powerful evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated in the analysis of how such laws “may infringe on the employees right to free speech,” but “it is more important to allow a government to withhold information.” The student then uses relevant examples, both past and present (Espionage Act; Lincoln; and the Patriot Act), in an application that further illuminates the issues involved.

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the issues surrounding free speech rights. Accurate and well supported concepts are provided. Powerful evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated in the analysis of the “fine line to walk between national security and what the public needs to know.” The student insightfully explores the idea that there are times when employees’ rights must be restricted (certain priveleges or rights must be sacrificed in exchange for the security of the public; just like corporations); however, the government cannot act in a vacuum and must be closely monitored (unpartisan groups to investigate and oversee; Congressional oversight; CIAs destruction of interegation tapes).