These responses give an opinion using clear and substantive information from the article and displaying an ability to make a personal connection with the text information. The supporting information is explicitly from the article and is used appropriately in support of their opinion.

These responses support an opinion of colonial life with unclear information or information related to colonial life that is not clearly from the article. Or, they use evidence from the article to describe colonial life without explicitly stating an opinion.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article or personal opinions about the article but do not demonstrate an understanding of what it was like to live during colonial times as described in the article. They may answer the question, but provide no substantive explanation.

These responses explain at least two ways the colonists kept warm that are different from two methods used today. The explanations of both the colonial and/or modern methods must be clear, logical, and distinct. These responses demonstrate an ability to link information from the article with related knowledge about the way things are done today.

These responses include some information about how people keep warm. However, they describe no more than one difference between the ways colonists kept warm and the ways people keep warm today. Or, they talk only about the colonists without linking information from the article with knowledge about methods of keeping warm today.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article and/or do not explain how colonists kept warm in the winter. They may or may not discuss how people keep warm today.

These responses support an opinion with a clear explanation of the relationship between the title and the article. They summarize or articulate information from the article and tell whether it does or does not relate to the title.

These responses support an opinion with a vague explanation that does not demonstrate a clear understanding of how the title applies to the article. Or, they use evidence from the article to assess the title’s appropriateness without explicitly stating or implying an opinion.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article or personal opinions about the article and/or do not demonstrate any understanding of the title. They may answer the question, but they provide no substantive explanation from the article.

These responses provide two text-based reasons why the hearth was the center of the colonial home. They demonstrate understanding of why the daily conditions in a colonial household highlighted the hearth’s importance.

These responses give only one text-based reason why the hearth was important. Although the responses must demonstrate the need for a hearth, they do not have to explicitly mention its role.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article or personal opinions about the article that fail to address the importance of the hearth. They demonstrate no understanding of how the colonists used the hearth as described in the article.

These responses demonstrate an overall understanding of how staying warm was a central concern for colonists on a cold winter evening. They present three or more evening activities, three of which involve the need to stay warm as described in the article.

These responses demonstrate an understanding of the colonial lifestyle portrayed in the article. They present at least three text-based evening activities, one or two of which involve the need to stay warm as described in the article.

These responses begin to discuss a typical evening in the colonies. They use details that are based on superficial information from the article and describe one or two activities unrelated to the need to stay warm (which was the major focus of the article). Or, they mention one or two activities from the article that involve staying warm. Or, they generalize about the need to stay warm without specifying any activity.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article or personal opinions about the article but do not discuss a typical colonial evening. They demonstrate no understanding of the colonists’ lifestyle as portrayed in the passage.

These responses provide an opinion about the author’s abilities. In addition, they provide at least one supportive example from the text that demonstrates an objective consideration of the article and/or text-based critical judgment of the author’s competence.

These responses provide an opinion about the author. These opinions go beyond simply "yes" or "no" by demonstrating some understanding of the information in the article. They fail to provide appropriate evidence from the article to support their opinion concerning the author’s abilities.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article or unsupported personal opinions about either the article or the author. These personal opinions provide no evidence of understanding the information in the article.

“Hungry Spider and the Turtle” is a West African folktale that humorously depicts hunger and the custom of hospitality through the actions and conversations of the title characters.

Spider and Turtle live in different countries. They first meet when Turtle, famished from traveling a long way from home, comes upon Spider’s house. While Spider is well known among his neighbors for his great appetite and his greediness, Turtle, being a stranger, believes Spider’s offer of a meal to be sincere. It becomes clear that Spider wants all the food for himself and that his gesture of hospitality is merely show so that people will not speak badly of him. Turtle realizes that he has been tricked out of having any food but doesn’t let on that he knows. He suavely concurs with Spider that it was a fine meal; and as Turtle leaves, he assures Spider of similar hospitality if Spider ever visits in his country.

In time, the gluttonous Spider finds himself a long way from home in Turtle’s country. Now it is Turtle’s turn to use local custom as a camouflage for true intent. He repays Spider’s gesture of hospitality, and Spider gets the meal that he deserves.

Acceptable answers indicate that Turtle got back at Spider or got revenge for Spider’s not sharing his food.

Unacceptable responses do not demonstrate an understanding of Turtle’s getting back at Spider for not sharing his food.

Acceptable responses indicate, essentially, that Turtle was any of the following:

Passive Patient Polite Correct or right Resigned

Long-suffering Smart Hungry/desperate for food Suckered Always trying over and over

Unacceptable responses include:

• Washed his feet

• Dirty

The following responses are unacceptable unless accompanied by a valid explanation or supportive information.

• Nice

• Friendly

Acceptable responses mention either Spider or Turtle and cite evidence from the story to support the student's choice. The information cited in the explanation must be appropriate within the context of the story.
For example:

• "I think Turtle would be a good friend because he isn't mean to people."

Unacceptable responses include:

• "I think Spider, because he shared his food."

Acceptable responses either agree or disagree with Turtle's actions and mention something about the fact that Spider was mean to Turtle or that Turtle tricked him and got revenge. The information included in the explanation must be appropriate within the context of the story.
For example:

• "Turtle was right to get back at Spider because Spider was mean to him."

• "Turtle was not right to get back at Spider because it was not a nice thing to do."

Unacceptable responses include:

• "Turtle was right to get back at Spider because Turtle was hungry."

In the dry land of southwestern Colorado, a beautiful plateau rises. It has so many trees that early Spanish explorers called it Mesa Verde, which means “green table.” For about eight hundred years Native Americans called the Anasazi lived on this mesa. And then they left. Ever since the cliff houses were first discovered a hundred years ago, scientists and historians have wondered why.

Anasazi is a Navajo word meaning “the ancient ones.” When they first settled there, around 500 A.D., the Anasazi lived in alcoves in the walls of the high canyons. Later they moved to the level land on top, where they built houses of stone and mud mortar. As time passed, they constructed more elaborate houses, like apartment buildings, with several families living close together.

The Anasazi made beautiful pottery, turquoise jewelry, fine sashes of woven hair, and baskets woven tightly enough to hold water. They lived by hunting and by growing corn and squash. Their way of life went on peacefully for several hundred years.

Then around 1200 A.D. something strange happened, for which the reasons are not quite clear. Most of the people moved from the level plateau back down into alcoves in the cliffs. The move must have made their lives difficult because they had to climb back up to the plateau to do the farming. But it seems the Anasazi planned to stay in the canyon walls, for they soon filled the alcoves with amazing cliff dwellings. “Cliff Palace,” the most famous of these, had more than two hundred rooms.

For all the hard work that went into building these new homes, the Anasazi did not live in them long. By 1300 A.D., the cliff dwellings were empty. Mesa Verde was deserted and remained a ghost country for almost six hundred years. Were the people driven out of their homes by enemies? No sign of attack or fighting, or even the presence of other tribes, has been found.

Archaeologists who have studied the place now believe there are other reasons. Mesa Verde, the beautiful green table, was no longer a good place to live. For one thing, in the second half of the thirteenth century there were long periods of cold, and very little rain fell—or else it came at the wrong time of year. Scientists know this from examining the wood used in the cliff dwellings. The growth rings in trees show good and bad growing seasons. But the people had survived drought and bad weather before, so there must have been another reason.

As the population grew, more land on the mesa top had to be farmed in order to feed the people. That meant that trees had to be cut to clear the land and also to use for houses and fuel. Without the forests, the rain began to wash away the mesa top.

How do we know about erosion problems that happened about eight hundred years ago? The Anasazi built many low dams across the smaller valleys on the mesa to slow down rain runoff. Even so, good soil washed away, and the people could no longer raise enough food. As the forests dwindled, the animals, already overhunted, left the mesa for mountainous areas with more trees.

And as the mesa “wore out,” so did the people. It appears that the Anasazi were not healthy. Scientists can learn a lot about ancient people’s health by studying the bones and teeth found in burials. The mesa dwellers had arthritis, and their teeth were worn down by the grit in corn meal, a main part of their diet.

As food became scarce, people grew weaker. Not many lived beyond their twenties. Women died very young, and few babies survived. Living so close together in the cliff houses, where everyone was hungry and worried, the people must have suffered from emotional strain. They probably quarreled often.

In the end, the Anasazi must have given up hope that things would get better. Families packed up and went away. Of course, the “ancient ones” did not simply disappear. They moved southeast to another area and mingled with other peoples. After a while, their heritage as the people of the Mesa Verde was forgotten.

In time the trees grew back, and the plateau became green once more. But, for the Anasazi, it was too late. Although they respected nature and tried to farm wisely, land that was used too hard could not support them forever.

Yet in their cliff houses and crafts, the “ancient ones” left us a superb monument. It is truly one of the most fascinating pictures of America’s past.

These responses provide a specific detail or a general impression from the passage that relates to some aspect of the Anasazi portrayed in the article.

These responses contain inaccurate information from the article or inappropriate personal opinions about the article. They do not provide any valid information or appropriate interpretation about the Anasazi as they were portrayed in the article.

These responses identify a reason for all three moves, even though the reasons for all the moves are not explicitly discussed in the article. These responses go beyond simply restating the article to interpret some of the information provided in the article as it relates to the moves.

These responses identify a reason for three of the moves discussed in the article. The reasons may be brief or simple restatements of information in the article as long as they are logical and taken from the passage.

These responses discuss reasons for only one or two of the moves described in the article. They receive credit for one explanation if they state that the article did not provide possible reasons for the first move.

These responses do not identify the reasons provided by the article for any of the moves that were made by the Anasazi. These responses may provide some facts about the Anasazi but do not relate them to any of the moves.

These responses state a preference and provide an explanation that reflects an appropriate interpretation of information in the article. The evidence must logically support the preference and must come directly from the article.

These responses state a preference but explain it with a vague or somewhat unclear interpretation of the information in the article. Or, they may not state a preference, but they may use information from the article to explain the conditions on top of the Mesa and in the alcoves. Or, they state a preference but use information from the article that does not support their preference.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article or personal opinions about the article that demonstrate no understanding of life on top of the mesa or in the alcoves. They may answer the question but not explain their preference. Or, they may only repeat information from the prompt.

These responses pose one unanswered question about the Anasazi and provide a clear explanation of how this additional information would be useful. The explanation must be noncircular. For example, it may focus on why the question is puzzling or how the answer might be useful on a personal level.

These responses demonstrate some understanding of the article by posing a question that is not answered in the article. However, the question is accompanied with a circular explanation or no explanation. Or, they may ask a question about the Anasazi experience that is only vaguely answered in the text and provides essential information about the Anasazi.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article or personal opinions about the article but fail to pose any questions concerning the Anasazi. Or, they pose questions that are already answered in the article. Or, they pose questions that provide no indication that they have read the passage (e.g., questions about the author).

These responses discuss one or more ways of convincing the Anasazi to leave the mesa. The arguments are based on appropriate information from the article.

These responses discuss one or more ways of convincing the people to leave the mesa. They do so, however, with arguments based on personal conjecture rather than information from the text. Or, they use broad statements such as "If you stay, you will die" rather than specific information from the article.

These responses contain inappropriate information from the article or personal opinions about the article that fail to address the need to leave the mesa. Or, they address the issue using inaccurate information to support their opinion.

These responses assess the statement and provide an explanation that focuses on more than one aspect of the Anasazi’s lifestyle. They demonstrate an explicit understanding of causal relationships between events and outcomes by connecting and integrating ideas across the text with their own ideas about the statement. Or, they must demonstrate their understanding of the paradox of success leading to decline.

These responses state whether they agree or disagree with the statement and provide an appropriate explanation that is based on information in the article. The explanation must demonstrate a clear understanding of the statement.

These responses state whether they agree or disagree with the statement, but their explanation is based solely on inappropriate information from the text. Or, they provide some information from the article about the Anasazi but do not relate it to why the civilization declined.

These responses do not discuss the validity of the statement. Or, they simply state their agreement with no explanation or an explanation relying on circular reasoning. Or they give an elaborate opinion that is not text-based.

Acceptable answers state one of the following:

• On the back of the return

• On the back of the front page

• In the booklet for Form 1040A/1040EZ

• The IRS

• At the post office, library, or bank

• From a tax accountant

Acceptable responses state any two of the following:

• You are married

• You have dependents

• You are over 65 and blind

• Your taxable income is over $50,000

• Your taxable interest income is over $400

• You have income other than wages, salaries, tips, or taxable scholarships or fellowships

Unacceptable responses fail to state factors or give one or more inaccurate factors. For example:

• You are single

• Your income is over $10,000

Acceptable responses state one of the following:

• Contact the IRS

• Report your best estimate of wages, salaries, tips, etc.

• Contact your employer

• Ask for one

Accept any combination of two of the following:

• Failure to sign the form

• Incorrect Social Security number reported

• The numbers on the W-2 form do not match the numbers reported on the tax return

• Line 4 was not checked or amount was not entered

• Incorrect addition and/or subtraction

• Was not sent to the correct service center

• Did not find the correct tax amount in tax table and/or did not use column for single people

• Line 2 taxable interest exceeds limit of $400

• Typing numbers on the form

• Using dollar signs

• Writing in the "IRS use only" box

• Not sending the W-2

• Not using the mailing label

• Mailing mistakes

• Fill out form incorrectly

Acceptable responses mention one of the following:

• Something to the effect that each line is to be completed in sequential order

• The line numbers on the tax return also correspond to line numbers in the directions

• For easy reference

• Because that's how the forms are made

• To correspond with something

• So you know what to answer

Acceptable responses mention one of the following:

• If they wanted tax credits

• If they want to claim itemized deductions

• Another form might be more suitable to your situation

• So that you could receive any tax reductions for which you are eligible

• Tips not in box 14

• You have dependents

• You are over 65 and blind

• Your taxable income is over $50,000

• Your taxable interest income is over $400

• You have income other than wages, salaries, tips, taxable scholarships, or fellowships

Any answer that refers to the filing status requirements:

• If you are married

Appropriate responses indicate that April 16 is the last date to file a return without penalty or interest. For example:

• "Because that's when it's due"

Inappropriate responses provide an inaccurate explanation:

• "It's the last date to get a refund"