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 minimal knowledge. The student provides a couple of vague, incomplete ideas (construction company would build a mall or something else to ruin our environment; creating a state park benefits the state).

Score for Anchor Paper #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and demonstrates minimal knowledge. Several acceptable, but fragmented, ideas are given (stop the development; people will have a place for water recreational activities; maintaining this park will be the cost of the state government).

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: In this response, knowledge of the state's role in the regulation of land use is demonstrated. A few basic ideas are provided (have a place where they could relax and enjoy Holiday; less pollution) with some support (If a construction company buys it, then all the pollution would get into the water and kill all the animal life living down there).

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the state's role in regulating land use. A couple of acceptable benefits are given (safe place for children, teenagers and adults; land...would be preserved). A key idea is then completed (appropriate for the government to buy undeveloped land but only if the purchase directly affects the citizens; government is only there to help the citizens and listen to there needs).

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of issues surrounding the state’s role in regulating land use. Concepts are accurate and supported (more homes or shopping malls would have been created and more trees and wildlife would have been destroyed; land becoming recreational; safe play area; keeping them ‘off the streets’). By weighing the competing interests of the state’s financial investment versus the benefit to the environment (price of the land must have been pretty high; state had every right…especially if it meant saving some wildlife; preserved the land; biggest disadvantage…is the amount of revenue the state would have gotten; it’s worth it if the land is saved from being torn apart), the student demonstrates some evidence of higher order thinking.

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of issues surrounding the state's role in regulating land use. Accurate concepts are provided (protects the wildlife and nature; great place for people go and have fun). Some evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated in examining the over-arching governmental principle that the General Assembly is elected to protect the state and its people (state government is the only agency that can truely protect the environment; building a park gave citizens a place to go to enjoy nature; If they don’t protect the environment, who will?).

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the issues surrounding the state's role in regulating land use. Accurate concepts are provided (new houses or buildings would promote business and perhaps help the economy; government is protecting the environment). Powerful evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated as the competing interests are weighed and balanced. The student acknowledges that, though the state is sacrificing a probable boost to the economy, environmental concerns are currently an important issue, not only for Maryland, but also for the nation. Deciding when to choose one over the other is a governmental responsibility.

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the issues surrounding the state's role in regulating land use. Powerful evidence of higher order thinking is demonstrated through analyzing the opportunity cost (new jobs) and benefits (protected environment). The student explores the implications of each option (already over-strained budget...could have done more good...improving roads...social programs and schools...tax cut; environment was saved and preserved for future generations). The deduction that there is no "correct" answer to this question illustrates further recognition of the complexities of the issue.