Grade Level Analytic Rubrics Aligned to Common Core and PARCC Assessment Models

Share Online Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Dr. Dea has created Common Core and PARCC aligned writing rubrics.

Dr. Dea has created Common Core and PARCC aligned writing rubrics.


New Writing Rubrics Coming Soon…along with student friendly reflection checklists!

On Monday, September 8th, PARCC released revised rubrics for use in assessing prose constructed responses. The revised rubric is not vastly different from PARCC rubrics released in 2013; PARCC’s greatest change is the development of a separate rubric for scoring narrative writing. In the next two weeks, I will be publishing updated rubrics aligned to PARCC and the Common Core for grade K-12. The new rubrics will also provide a corresponding student reflection checklist.

In the meantime, use the rubrics shared on these pages–high quality (and really, not greatly different) from the revised editions to come. These rubrics are offered as a tool to support grade-level evaluation of writing mastery aligned to the Common Core Standards. The rubric is adaptable to assessing argument (opinion) writing, informational writing, and/or narrative. Modeled after PARCC’s expanded scoring rubric at each grade, the rubric includes PARCC’s 5 criteria for assessment: reading comprehension; development of ideas; organization; clarity of language; and knowledge of conventions. The rubric also addresses specific grade-level language standards for expected mastery.

Complete the form below to download Checklist Rubrics for Grade levels 1-11.

Defect/Bug/Issue Report
Restate the problem title and/or include more descriptive summary information.
Include any setup or preparation work and the steps we can take to reproduce the problem.
Describe your results and how they differed from what you expected.
Provide information on steps taken to isolate the problem. Under what conditions or circumstances does the problem occur or not occur.
If there is a workaround for the problem, please describe it in detail.
Document any additional information that might be useful in resolving the problem.
Share Online Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Tags: , ,

7 Responses to “Grade Level Analytic Rubrics Aligned to Common Core and PARCC Assessment Models”

  1. Deb Brady July 22, 2014 at 7:58 am #

    Dr. Conrad-Curry,
    Can you explain why you have 3 as the highest category through grade 5?
    Debby Brady

    • Lindsay Coats July 22, 2014 at 12:09 pm #

      Hi Deb–in attempting to stay aligned to the PARCC rubric drafts I followed their lead. They do not award a four for any criteria other than conventions. And, they award zeroes for writing that demonstrates incompetence. In making this decision, PARCC’s rubric lends itself to a growth model–the three is the top at these grades. I imagine the thinking is that a beginning writer would not be able to make the top score on the criteria’s descriptor. However, if I were the classroom teacher, I would take scoring liberties but leave the criteria in place; I would not award a zero for incompetency, rather I would award a zero if the attribute is not demonstrated. I give zeros where zero is the performance. Does this make sense? Check out PARCC’s draft rubrics here: grade 3; Grade 4-5

  2. Deb July 22, 2014 at 1:51 pm #

    Thank you for explaining PARCC’s rationale and for translating it into the classroom. I really appreciate the depth of your thinking and the work that went into this very concise and teacher-friendly rubric.
    I have been concerned that the NCLB focus on bringing everyone to proficiency put a ceiling on expectations and left high expecctations behind. Do you think that these national expectations are sufficiently high? Do these 3’s say the same thing? I know that you work with so many teachers across the U.S. and would really like your read on this. I know how carefully you’ve studied PARCC and literacy.

    • Dr. Dea Conrad-Curry July 24, 2014 at 10:59 am #

      I agree with your concerns regarding NCLB’s misguided thinking regarding proficiency. In my opinion, the language and expectations framed within the document is one of the many oversteps government has made in the area of education. Of course there is no error in establishing an environment of high achievement among all learners and for all teachers; however, to think that achievement for the fastest 2-footed runner can be measured with an identical tool to the runners of a three-legged race is absurd (hoping you follow my analogy). On the other hand, the Common Core Standards clearly state that they are not intended for either the gifted or the special needs: “The Standards set grade-specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or well above grade-level expectations. No set of grade-specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities, needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom. However, the Standards do provide clear signposts along the way to the goal of college and career readiness for all students” (Common Core State Standards, p.6).

      This said, I do think the standards are sufficiently high and I do think that for the most part, PARCC’s assessment is a quality tool for measuring the standards. The unfortunate aspect to the NCLB, CCSS, Assessment (PARCC, SBAC or any of the others currently under design), is NCLB’s requirement regarding testing. If the standards are not specifically written for either the gifted or those of special needs, how can an assessment designed to measure the standards truly measure the achievement of those for whom the standards are not specifically designed? A conundrum–one I would appreciate having the opportunity to work with but no doubt, will not be invited to that table if is ever set. As I blather on…to definitively determine who is gifted and who is special needs is itself a conundrum. The fact is…some people are both…and where does that put those? Oh, methinks this is too much for a reply to a blog comment/question and more than perhaps you intended!

  3. Fran July 31, 2014 at 6:37 pm #

    Love, love, love this idea.

    I really, really like the grouping of the standards by the headers!
    1. Would there be any form of a “Unit Organizer”?
    2. Tell me more about why you have text resources first. Would those not also be a part of the resources?
    3. I’m also wondering about the order of Assessment and Results Desired when I think about UbD planning.
    4. The new piece added by Wiggins and McTighe that I really like is “Transfer Goals”. Have you seen that? It’s that bigger piece about what students should be able to do independently.

    • Dr. Dea Conrad-Curry August 1, 2014 at 12:21 pm #

      Thanks for posting, Fran. I’m not sure what you mean by the first question…
      But you have given me pause on the second. I see the teaching texts as separate from and part of the resources list. I’ll have to go back and take a look at how I labeled that section. Question 3: Wiggins says the design I he outlines Understanding by Design is not hard and fast. In the text itself, he states you can really start in many different places. BTW, did you see his post today: How do you plan?

      So, given the food for thought you’ve offered, I’m going to take another look and see what I can do. Really appreciate your time and thoughtful attention to the work I am doing.

    • Dr. Dea Conrad-Curry August 1, 2014 at 4:43 pm #

      Hello Again!
      Now I get it. I was referring to the planner as lesson planners as well as unit planners. That is “me” thing. I no longer see one day and done lessons as viable in the classroom. I also do not think four and six weeks units are very effective. Teachers and students need more change-up than that. And…I don’t believe teachers can effectively plan for periods of study that exceed two to three weeks. Therefore, I have gone to talking about multi-day lessons. But…I do see this as problematic. As a result, I have renamed the docs as unit planners but I will soon need to blog on the theories I am advancing in this comment. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
      Kind regards,

Leave a Reply