Text-Based Writing Prompts: Administration and Scoring Guidelines Teacher Directions: Students will read a stimulus about a single topic. A stimulus consists of several texts written on a single topic. The stimulus may include informational or literary fiction or nonfiction texts and can cover a wide array of topics. After reading the stimulus, the students will respond to a writing prompt in which they will provide information on a topic, develop a narrative, or take a stance to support an opinion or argument. Students will be required to synthesize information from the text sets and must cite specific evidence from the texts to support their ideas. Students’ informative/explanatory responses should demonstrate a developed and supported controlling idea. Students’ opinion/argumentative responses should support an opinion/argument using ideas presented in the stimulus. Students will have 120 minutes to read the passages, and plan, write, revise and edit their essay. Students should read the prompt first. They should be encouraged to highlight, underline, and take notes to support the planning process. Scoring: The attached text-based rubric should be used to score student responses. While the total possible points on the rubric is ten, it is recommended that three individual scores be given—one score for each of the three domains on the rubric. This will allow the teacher to determine specific areas of need within individual student responses, thus allowing for differentiation in the writing instruction that follows these formative writing tasks. The three domains are: Purpose, Focus, Organization (PFO), Evidence and Elaboration (EE), and Conventions of Standard English (CSE). Teachers should score holistically within each domain—PFO (4-points), EE (4-points), and CSE (2-points). Each level of scoring within a domain is based on the overarching statement for the score found in the rubric. For example, on the grades 6-11 rubric for argumentation, the overarching statement for a score of 4 in the Purpose, Focus, Organization domain is, “The response is fully sustained and consistently focused within the purpose, audience, and task; and it has a clear and effective organizational structure creating coherence and completeness.” The bulleted points that follow the statement must be considered as factors in the scoring, but should not be utilized as a checklist. Most, but not all, of the bulleted points will be evident in the student writing for a score at a specific level. Teachers should keep in mind that a score of 3 on the rubric for a domain signals student proficiency in the addressed writing standard with a score of 4 representing mastery. In the CSE domain, a score of two represents student proficiency in the standard. Ninth Grade Argumentative Prompt Write an argumentative essay in which you argue for or against big game trophy hunting. Use the information from the passages in your essay. Manage your time carefully so that you can:     Read the passages Plan your essay Write your essay Revise and edit your essay Be sure to:     Include a claim Address counterclaims Use evidence from multiple sources Avoid overly relying on one source Your written response should be in the form of a multi-paragraph essay. Remember to spend time reading, planning, writing, revising, and editing. Big Game Hunting Is Also Big Business for Wealthy Few By LIAM STACKAUG. 10, 2015 NOTES An American dentist’s recent killing of a lion named Cecil in Zimbabwe sparked public outrage, but it largely obscured the fact that big game hunting is also a big business in which animals are regularly pursued. Several hunting outfits in the United States help organize safari hunts in countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe, where licensed hunting is legal. These safari hunts cater to a small but wealthy clientele of big-game hunters, who bring back more than 400 lion trophies — heads and furs — into the United States each year, according to the Humane Society, a conservation group. More than 750 elephants meet a similar fate. Big-game hunters operate in a separate world from weekend deer hunters in the United States. Plane tickets, specialized gear and weapons, safari guides and astronomical hunting fees determined by what kind of animal you want to kill – a lion costs more than $50,000, experts say – keep the pastime out of reach for most hunters. “Typically they are fairly wealthy individuals,” said Steve West, a wellknown hunting advocate who appears on a reality show on the Outdoor Channel and runs a tourism company that plans hunts. “You’re going to get a far more elite kind of person who books the average trip than in the U.S.” Commercial trophy hunting is allowed in more than a dozen African countries, with most hunts taking place in South Africa, Tanzania, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Americans make up around 60 percent of biggame hunters active on the continent, activists say. Mr. West’s company is one of many that help American hunters plan trips overseas — offering everything from advice on weapons to guidance on what to expect once you’re out in the wild. Mr. West has been on “hundreds” of hunts, he said, including more than two dozen trips that have taken him overseas, where he has trekked with the Kalahari bushmen in Namibia and hiked in Argentina. (Mr. West’s TV program shows him as he kills an animal and then poses by the corpse.) Mr. West sets up as many as 50 overseas hunts a year for wealthy travelers, many of them in Africa. He said NOTES “These are salt-of-the-earth people,” he said. “They may be wealthy, but people who hunt consider themselves conservationists.” Sabrina Corgatelli, an American hunter who was attacked on social media last week after she posted pictures of herself posing with a giraffe, a wildebeest and other animals she shot and killed on a legal hunt in South Africa, echoed that sentiment in an interview on the “Today” show. “Everybody just thinks we’re coldhearted killers, and it’s not that,” she said. “There is a connection with the animal, and just because we hunt them doesn’t mean we don’t have a respect for them.” At the end of the day, Mr. West argues, hunters are realists who understand that an exotic or endangered animal is more likely to be protected from extinction if they are assigned a financial value. African trophy hunting may be an expensive hobby that only a few can afford, but it is true that it is also a big business. In an op-ed piece written in 2011 that appeared in The Daily Caller, a conservative website, Larry Rudolph, then president of Safari Club International, and Joseph Hosmer, president of the Safari Club International Foundation, argued that hunting was “good for Africa’s lions.” And, they said, humans benefited, too. “Revenues from hunting generate $200 million annually in remote rural areas of Africa,” they wrote. Much of that money goes to pay for park rangers and other forms of wildlife management that is a boon to the animals, they argued. “This revenue gives wildlife value, and humans protect the revenue by protecting the wildlife.” On Friday, the governments of South Africa and Namibia endorsed that view. Both countries condemned the recent decision by Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and other carriers to ban hunting trophies. They said this would hurt the hunting business and deprive their countries of money for wildlife management and community development. That is an argument that opponents of hunting, like the Humane Society, reject. Instead, anti-hunting activists argue for the benefits of other forms of tourism. The local economy in rural Namibia, for example, may be better served by busloads of tourists toting cameras instead of rifles. “Tourism based on living animals brings in far more money than hunting does,” said Teresa Telecky, a wildlife expert at the Humane Society and a NOTES critic of trophy hunting. “There are far more people coming to Africa for tourism than for trophy hunting, and that provides people with real livelihoods — working in restaurants, hotels, the tourism industry — and that is far more important than this theory that hunting revenue will trickle down to normal people.” 6 Major Pros and Cons of Hunting From NLCATP.org Feb 19, 2015 What Are the Pros of Hunting 1. Control of Animal Populations Many of those that advocate hunting feel that it helps to keep certain species of animal populations under control. Without the existence of hunting research shows that some animal specie populations might grow to large numbers that are not ideal. The population of deer was originally held in check be larger predators including wolves, cougars and bears, but the killing of these animals has led to the overpopulation of deer. If hunting was now done away with, it would grow into a larger deer overpopulation issue. The population of deer is currently only held in check by hunting. 2. Food Even though hunting is often viewed as a hobby, it is also a method for survival. Hunting is something that some families depend on as a source of food. This has been true for centuries. Without hunting there would not be meat that you could purchase form the grocery store. You might not be the one doing the hunting, but you are enjoying the benefits. Doing away with hunting would limit the food supply greatly. 3. Fun Experience Many of those avid hunters that promote it as a sport claim that it is a fun activity and enjoy the skill of it. Hunting is considered to be a pastime and a fun hobby for many different people of all ages and from all parts of the world. It does not seem to be an activity that will be going away any time soon. What Are the Cons Hunting 1. Trophy Hunting Those that are opposed to hunting are primarily outraged by trophy hunting. This refers to the type of hunting that is done for pleasure or sport instead of for food. Trophy hunting is seen by many opposed to hunting as cruel and unnecessary. The animals that are killed are not consumed, but are used as trophies to show off hunting skills. 2. Dangerous Sport Another big negative aspect of hunting is the possibility of accident or danger. This is especially true for new hunters with very little experience. It does not take much for a hunting trip to go terribly wrong and to end tragically. Many people die each and every year due to hunting accidents. There have been many different reported accounts of hunters accidentally shooting and killing fellow hunters. NOTES 3. Inhumane Suffering One of the most controversial aspects of hunting is the prospect that an animal may be suffering from a long and painful death. This leads to many protesting the idea of killing defenseless animals and exerting a harsh physical death. CAN TROPHY HUNTING ACTUALLY HELP CONSERVATION? JANUARY 15, 2014 SCIENCE MAGAZINE Can trophy hunting ever be a useful tool in the conservationist’s toolbox? On the surface, the answer would appear obvious. It seems as if the killing of an animal – especially an endangered one – for sport is directly contradictory to the goal of ensuring the survival of a species. The question has been asked again following the auction last Saturday night of the right to hunt an endangered black rhinoceros in Namibia. And the answer, as usual, is more complicated. The permit was sold for $350,000, well above the previous high bid for a permit in that country, $223,000. It is quite common for an African nation to sell permits for trophy hunting, even for endangered species. Indeed, both Namibia and South Africa are legally permitted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to sell five permits for the hunting of adult male black rhinos each year. And it’s not just rhinos. For example, a 2000 report from TRAFFIC, an organization that works with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track the international trade of wildlife, describes how Namibia alone was the site of almost 16,000 trophy hunts that year. Those 16,000 animals represent a wide variety of species – birds, reptiles, mammals, and even primates – both endangered and not. They include four of the so-called “big five” popular African game: lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, and rhinoceros. (Only the elephant was missing.) The hunters brought eleven million US dollars with them to spend in the Namibian economy. And that doesn’t include revenue from non-trophy recreational hunting activities, which are limited to four species classified as of “least concern” by the IUCN: Greater Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok and Warthog. The issues here are complex and highly political. There are several questions that science can’t help address, primary of which is whether or not the money raised from the sale of hunting permits is used for conservation, something often promised by hunting tour operators. But empirical research can help to answer several other questions, such as whether hunting can ever help drive conservation NOTES efforts. In 2006, researcher Peter A. Lindsey of Kenya’s Mpala Research Centre and colleagues interviewed 150 people who either had already hunted in Africa, or who planned to do so within the following three years. Their findings were published in the journal Animal Conservation. A majority of hunters – eighty-six percent! – told the researchers they preferred hunting in an area where they knew that a portion of the proceeds went back into local communities. Nearly half of the hunters they interviewed also indicated that they’d be willing to pay an equivalent price for a poorer trophy if it was a problem animal that would have had to be killed anyway. Lindsey’s team also discovered that hunters were more sensitive to conservation concerns than was perhaps expected. For example, they were less willing to hunt in areas where wild dogs or cheetahs are illegally shot, in countries that intentionally surpass their quotas, or with operators who practice “put-and-take hunting,” which is where trophy animals are released onto a fenced-in property just before a hunt. Together this suggests that hunters were willing to place economic pressure on countries and tour companies to operate in as ethical a manner as possible. Approximately nine out of every ten hunters said they’d be willing to hunt in places that were poor for wildlife viewing or which lacked attractive scenery. That is, they said that they were willing to hunt in areas that would not have otherwise been able to reap an economic benefit from ecotourism. It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservationrelated issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species. Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel LeaderWilliams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an NOTES increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies. In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. Still, the elephants of Zimbabwe and the white rhinos of South Africa seem to suggest that it is possible for conservation and trophy hunting to coexist, at least in principle. It is indeed a tricky, but not impossible, balance to strike. FINAL English Language Arts Text-based Writing Rubrics Grades 6–11: Argumentation UPDATED OCTOBER 2014 FINAL ELA Text-based Writing Rubrics, Grades 6–11: Argumentation Florida Standards Assessments Score Grades 6–11 Argumentation Text-based Writing Rubric (Score points within each domain include most of the characteristics below.) Purpose, Focus, and Organization Evidence and Elaboration (4-point Rubric) (4-point Rubric) 4 The response is fully sustained and consistently focused within the purpose, audience, and task; and it has a clear claim and effective organizational structure creating coherence and completeness. The response includes most of the following:  Strongly maintained claim with little or no loosely related material  Clearly addressed alternate or opposing claims*  Skillful use of a variety of transitional strategies to clarify the relationships between and among ideas  Logical progression of ideas from beginning to end with a satisfying introduction and conclusion  Appropriate style and tone established and maintained 3 The response is adequately sustained and generally focused within the purpose, audience, and task; and it has a clear claim and evident organizational structure with a sense of completeness. The response includes most of the following:  Maintained claim, though some loosely related material may be present  Alternate or opposing claims included but may not be completely addressed*  Adequate use of a variety of transitional strategies to clarify the relationships between and among ideas  Adequate progression of ideas from beginning to end with a sufficient introduction and conclusion  Appropriate style and tone established The response provides thorough, convincing, and credible support, citing evidence for the writer’s claim that includes the effective use of sources, facts, and details. The response includes most of the following:  Smoothly integrated, thorough, and relevant evidence, including precise references to sources  Effective use of a variety of elaborative techniques to support the claim, demonstrating an understanding of the topic and text  Clear and effective expression of ideas, using precise language  Academic and domain-specific vocabulary clearly appropriate for the audience and purpose  Varied sentence structure, demonstrating language facility The response provides adequate support, citing evidence for the writer’s claim that includes the use of sources, facts, and details. The response includes most of the following:  Generally integrated and relevant evidence from sources, though references may be general or imprecise  Adequate use of some elaborative techniques  Adequate expression of ideas, employing a mix of precise and general language  Domain-specific vocabulary generally appropriate for the audience and purpose  Some variation in sentence structure Continued on the following page 1 UPDATED OCTOBER 2014 Conventions of Standard English (2-point Rubric begins at score point 2) FINAL ELA Text-based Writing Rubrics, Grades 6–11: Argumentation Florida Standards Assessments Score Purpose, Focus, and Organization (4-point Rubric) Evidence and Elaboration (4-point Rubric) 2 The response is somewhat sustained within the purpose, audience, and task but may include loosely related or extraneous material; and it may have a claim with an inconsistent organizational structure. The response may include the following:  Focused claim but insufficiently sustained or unclear  Insufficiently addressed alternate or opposing claims*  Inconsistent use of transitional strategies with little variety  Uneven progression of ideas from beginning to end with an inadequate introduction or conclusion 1 The response is related to the topic but may demonstrate little or no awareness of the purpose, audience, and task; and it may have no discernible claim and little or no discernible organizational structure. The response may include the following:  Absent, confusing, or ambiguous claim  Missing alternate or opposing claims*  Few or no transitional strategies  Frequent extraneous ideas that impede understanding  Too brief to demonstrate knowledge of focus or organization The response provides uneven, cursory support/evidence for the writer’s claim that includes partial use of sources, facts, and details. The response may include the following:  Weakly integrated evidence from sources; erratic or irrelevant references or citations  Repetitive or ineffective use of elaborative techniques  Imprecise or simplistic expression of ideas  Some use of inappropriate domain-specific vocabulary  Most sentences limited to simple constructions The response provides minimal support/evidence for the writer’s claim, including little if any use of sources, facts, and details. The response may include the following:  Minimal, absent, erroneous, or irrelevant evidence or citations from the source material  Expression of ideas that is vague, unclear, or confusing  Limited and often inappropriate language or domain-specific vocabulary  Sentences limited to simple constructions 0 The response demonstrates an adequate command of basic conventions. The response may include the following:  Some minor errors in usage but no patterns of errors  Adequate use of punctuation, capitalization, sentence formation, and spelling The response demonstrates a partial command of basic conventions. The response may include the following:  Various errors in usage  Inconsistent use of correct punctuation, capitalization, sentence formation, and spelling The response demonstrates a lack of command of conventions, with frequent and severe errors often obscuring meaning. *Not applicable at grade 6 2 Conventions of Standard English (2-point Rubric) UPDATED OCTOBER 2014 
Purchase answer to see full attachment