What this rubric measures
The ATLAS Informative/Explanatory Text-based Writing Rubric, Grades 6–11 is the official scoring guide used to evaluate student writing on Arkansas ATLAS assessments. It is an Analytic rubric that scores responses across 3 distinct criteria, allowing teachers to give precise, targeted feedback on each area of writing.
All 3 scoring criteria
Click any criterion to expand its score level descriptors. The language below is taken verbatim from the official Arkansas Department of Education ATLAS scoring guide.
1 Purpose, Focus, and Organization
The response is fully sustained and consistently focused within the purpose, audience, and task; and it has a clear controlling idea and effective organizational structure creating coherence and completeness. The response includes most of the following:
- Strongly maintained controlling idea with little or no loosely related material
- 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 objective tone established and maintained
The response is adequately sustained and generally focused within the purpose, audience, and task; and it has a clear controlling idea and evident organizational structure with a sense of completeness. The response includes most of the following:
- Maintained controlling idea, though some loosely related material may be present
- 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 objective tone established
The response is somewhat sustained within the purpose, audience, and task but may include loosely related or extraneous material; and it may have a controlling idea with an inconsistent organizational structure. The response may include the following:
- Focused controlling idea but insufficiently sustained or unclear
- Inconsistent use of transitional strategies with little variety
- Uneven progression of ideas from beginning to end with an inadequate introduction or conclusion
The response is related to the topic but may demonstrate little or no awareness of the purpose, audience, and task; and it may have little or no controlling idea or discernible organizational structure. The response may include the following:
- Confusing or ambiguous ideas
- Few or no transitional strategies
- Frequent extraneous ideas that impede understanding
- Too brief to demonstrate knowledge of focus or organization
2 Evidence and Elaboration
The response provides thorough and convincing support, citing evidence for the controlling idea or main idea 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 (including but not limited to definitions, quotations, and examples), 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 controlling idea or main idea 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
The response provides uneven, cursory support/evidence for the controlling idea or main idea 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 controlling idea or main idea, 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
3 Conventions of Standard English
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.
The 2-point Conventions rubric begins at score point 2. A response with frequent and severe errors that obscure meaning earns 0 in this domain.
How to score with the ATLAS Informative/Explanatory Text-based Writing Rubric, Grades 6–11.
A practical guide for teachers and norming teams. How to apply each descriptor consistently, the pitfalls that hurt inter-rater reliability, and a workflow for calibrating with colleagues.
Three-domain analytic, scored independently
- Score Purpose/Focus/Organization (0 to 4) first, then Evidence and Elaboration (0 to 4), then Conventions (0 to 2). Sum for the rubric total out of 10.
- Each domain is scored independently. A strong response can earn 4 on Purpose/Focus/Organization and 2 on Evidence and Elaboration when the controlling idea is clearer than the source integration.
- Conventions has only 3 score points (0, 1, 2) on a tighter scale than the other two domains.
Objective tone is part of Purpose/Focus/Organization
- At Grades 6-11 Informative/Explanatory, the top two score levels of Purpose/Focus/Organization include the bullet on appropriate style AND objective tone. A response with strong organization but a persuasive or opinion-style voice may cap at 2.
- Objective tone means presenting information about the topic, not advocating for a position. Informative/Explanatory is about explaining what is, not arguing for what should be.
- Style and tone are NOT scored at Grades 3-5. The bullet only appears in the Grades 6-11 rubric.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Awarding a 4 on Evidence and Elaboration for many source mentions. The rubric requires precise references AND a variety of elaborative techniques (definitions, quotations, examples).
- Letting an opinionated voice slide on a Grades 6-11 Informative response. The style and objective tone bullet matters here in a way it does not at Grades 3-5.
- Penalizing surface errors in Purpose/Focus/Organization or Evidence and Elaboration when the rubric only scores them under Conventions.
Tips for norming with your team
- Anchor with 3 to 5 sample responses scored by your most experienced grader before the session.
- Score the first 5 silently, then compare. Discuss any domain where graders are more than one point apart.
- Re-norm halfway through a long batch. Drift is real.
Notes for the ATLAS Informative/Explanatory Text-based Writing Rubric, Grades 6–11
ATLAS Grades 6-11 Informative/Explanatory adds a bullet on appropriate style and objective tone to the Purpose/Focus/Organization descriptor at score levels 3 and 4. This makes it possible to drop a point on PFO for a persuasive voice that would be fine in the Argumentation rubric.
The Evidence and Elaboration descriptor at the top score level explicitly names elaborative techniques (definitions, quotations, examples). The same techniques appear at Grades 3-5; the bar at Grades 6-11 is precise references to sources and effective integration.
Conventions uses the 3-point sub-scale (0, 1, 2) shared across all ATLAS rubrics. At Grades 6-11, the appropriate level of complexity raises expectations for clause-level punctuation and academic vocabulary, but the descriptor is otherwise unchanged.
If a response is off-topic, off-purpose, not in English, or otherwise unscorable, the Arkansas DOE rubric framework still applies the standard scale. Local administration documents may apply condition codes for non-scorable responses.
See this rubric in action.
EnlightenAI scores student writing on this exact rubric, with per-criterion feedback that mirrors how you grade by hand. The sample response below shows how the rubric applies to a real piece of student writing, scored against every criterion.
How satellite data has transformed Amazon deforestation research
Satellite data has transformed the way scientists track Amazon deforestation in three important ways: it provides continuous, near-real-time coverage; it allows researchers to measure forest loss across vast remote regions; and it makes the evidence available to policymakers and the public. Together, these capabilities have changed deforestation from a hidden problem into a visible one.
Continuous, near-real-time coverage
Source 1 describes how NASA satellites pass over the Amazon basin every few days, generating updated imagery that scientists can compare across short time intervals. According to Source 1, this allows researchers to detect clear-cut patches "within weeks rather than years." Before satellite coverage, scientists relied on ground surveys and aerial photography, both of which were limited by weather, distance, and cost. The new pace of detection means illegal logging can be flagged while it is still happening.
Measuring loss across remote regions
Source 2 explains that the Amazon basin covers more than 5.5 million square kilometers across nine countries, much of which is impossible to reach by road. Satellite imagery treats this entire region as a single dataset. Researchers can quantify forest loss not just in well-studied regions but in remote areas where ground-based monitoring has historically been thin or nonexistent. Source 2 notes that this is how scientists discovered that 17 percent of the basin has been deforested since 1970, a figure that earlier surveys had underestimated.
Making evidence public
Both Source 1 and Source 2 emphasize that satellite imagery is now shared openly with policymakers, journalists, and conservation organizations. Source 2 describes the Global Forest Watch platform, which publishes near-real-time deforestation alerts that anyone can view. This shift has connected scientific findings to public accountability in a way that internal reports could not. Source 1 quotes one researcher who said the data is now "impossible to ignore."
Conclusion
Continuous coverage, basin-wide measurement, and public access together explain why satellite data has become the primary tool for tracking Amazon deforestation. The combined evidence from both sources shows that what scientists can see has expanded dramatically, and so has what the rest of us can see.
Strongly maintained controlling idea, objective tone throughout
Controlling idea is stated at the start (three transformations) and addressed in three body paragraphs in order. Transitions are varied (Before satellite coverage, According to Source 1, Both Source 1 and Source 2).
Precise references to both sources, variety of elaborative techniques
References to both Source 1 and Source 2 appear in every paragraph. Direct quotations ("within weeks rather than years," "impossible to ignore") and specific statistics (5.5 million sq km, nine countries, 17 percent since 1970).
Adequate command at the grade 9 level
Sentence structures are varied with embedded clauses. Punctuation, capitalization, and spelling are correct. Quotation marks and units (square kilometers, percentages) are formatted correctly. No patterns of errors.
Score this rubric consistently, with the feedback students actually use
EnlightenAI is trained on your standards and your exemplars, then scores at the speed of your classroom.
Trained on your rubric
Upload this rubric, or any custom one, and the AI learns your exact criteria, descriptor language, and score level boundaries.
Per-criterion feedback
Students receive specific, actionable comments tied to each criterion, exactly the way you'd grade by hand.
Built for K–12 schools
Roster sync, FERPA-aligned data handling, and per-school configuration so every campus uses the same standards.
About the ATLAS Informative/Explanatory Text-based Writing Rubric, Grades 6–11
What is the ATLAS Informative/Explanatory Text-based Writing Rubric for Grades 6 to 11?
How is ATLAS Informative/Explanatory different from ATLAS Argumentation at Grades 6-11?
Does the style and objective tone bullet apply at Grades 3-5?
How many sources do ATLAS Grades 6-11 Informative prompts give students?
Is this rubric the official version from the Arkansas Department of Education?
Where can I find the source document?
Can EnlightenAI score student writing using this rubric?
Use this rubric in EnlightenAI
Train EnlightenAI on the ATLAS Informative/Explanatory Text-based Writing Rubric, Grades 6–11 and start scoring student writing, with consistent per-domain feedback, in a single class period.