The following 9 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. Fragments of basic ideas (the right to privacy; there used to protect people) are presented, but the ideas are skeletal and incomplete.

Score for Anchor Paper #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Although fragments of a basic idea (invasion of privacy; the cameras can take pictures of what ever they want) are provided, the fragments are general and incomplete.

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of issues raised by camera installations at intersections with red lights. Basic ideas (they could catch people who are violating the law; who make the streets unsafe; people who are responsible for the deaths of inasant [innocent] people) are presented. The response is adequate for a score of "2."

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of issues raised by camera installations at intersections with red lights. Basic ideas (the right of privacy; red-light runners are very dangerous) are provided with a little support (if they hit a car then both cars will be seriously damaged and the divers and any passengers are all at great risk).

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of issues raised by camera installations at intersections with red lights. Basic ideas (could be violating a person's privity but also help decrease the amount of accidents; if a person knows that the cameras are there then maybey they won't run the red light) are provided with a little support (can make driving a little safer).

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of issues raised by camera installations at intersections with red lights. Concepts are accurate and supported (the right to privacy; cameras are taking pictures of their cars; violating their personal space; one of the most effective ways to cut down on running red lights). Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through appropriate application of analysis and evaluation (no excess information could be found from this photograph, therefore not violating the citizens right vs. unwarranted search and seizure).

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of issues raised by camera installations at intersections with red lights. Accurate concepts (invasion of privacy; even though the police aren't around to catch someone that runs a red light the camera helps the police with making the red light runners pay fines; less people will run red lights) are supported. Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is provided through the appropriate application of analysis and the weighing of competing interests (the cameras protect public safety, and isn't that more important than protecting the privacy of people that break the law?).

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of issues raised by camera installations at intersections with red lights. Accurate concepts (the right to privacy; taking a picture of license plates; a smart and useful idea to protect drivers; it could save the life of someone) are supported. Appropriate application of analysis (wouldn't you want their liscense plate number so they could be punished) and the weighing of competing interests (save the life of someone you love or punish those offenders who run red lights: do you value your privacy more than that) show some evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Score for Anchor Paper #9: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of issues raised by camera installations at intersections with red lights. Accurate concepts (the right to privacy; provide proof of the offense) are well supported. Application of extensive analysis and evaluation (you cannot obtain evidence illegally by conducting a search and seizure without either the suspect's permission or an order from a judge; police and the government have never had the suspect's permission or an order from a judge; it provides a means of self incrimination), integrated with cause-and-effect reasoning (therefore the tapes can be considered illegally obtained and should not be allowed in court as evidence), demonstrates powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Additional Scored Student Responses