What this rubric measures
The CMAS Research Simulation and Literary Analysis Writing Rubric, Grades 4–5 is the official scoring guide used to evaluate student writing on Colorado CMAS assessments. It is an Analytic rubric that scores responses across 2 distinct criteria, allowing teachers to give precise, targeted feedback on each area of writing.
All 2 scoring criteria
Click any criterion to expand its score level descriptors. The language below is taken verbatim from the official Colorado Department of Education CMAS scoring guide.
1 Reading Comprehension and Written Expression
The student response:
- demonstrates full comprehension of ideas stated explicitly and/or inferentially by providing an accurate analysis;
- addresses the prompt and provides effective development of the topic that is consistently appropriate to task, purpose, and audience;
- uses clear reasoning supported by relevant, text-based evidence in the development of the topic;
- is effectively organized with clear and coherent writing;
- uses language effectively to clarify ideas.
The student response:
- demonstrates comprehension of ideas stated explicitly and/or inferentially by providing a mostly accurate analysis;
- addresses the prompt and provides mostly effective development of the topic that is appropriate to task, purpose, and audience;
- uses mostly clear reasoning supported by relevant text-based evidence in the development of the topic;
- is organized with mostly clear and coherent writing;
- uses language that is mostly effective to clarify ideas.
The student response:
- demonstrates basic comprehension of ideas stated explicitly and/or inferentially by providing a generally accurate analysis;
- addresses the prompt and provides some development of the topic that is somewhat appropriate to task, purpose, and audience;
- uses some reasoning and text-based evidence in the development of the topic;
- demonstrates some organization with somewhat coherent writing;
- uses language to express ideas with some clarity.
The student response:
- demonstrates limited comprehension of ideas by providing a minimally accurate analysis;
- addresses the prompt and provides minimal development of the topic that is limited in its appropriateness to task, purpose, and audience;
- uses limited reasoning and text-based evidence;
- demonstrates limited organization and coherence;
- uses language to express ideas with limited clarity.
The student response:
- demonstrates no comprehension of ideas by providing an inaccurate or no analysis.
- is undeveloped and/or inappropriate to the task, purpose, and audience;
- includes little to no text-based evidence;
- lacks organization and coherence;
- does not use language to express ideas with clarity.
At Grades 4 to 5, the Reading Comprehension and Written Expression construct moves to a 5-point scale (0 to 4). The added top descriptor recognizes fully effective responses that go beyond mostly accurate analysis.
2 Knowledge of Language and Conventions
The student response to the prompt demonstrates full command of the conventions of standard English at an appropriate level of complexity. There may be a few minor errors in mechanics, grammar, and usage, but meaning is clear.
The student response to the prompt demonstrates some command of the conventions of standard English at an appropriate level of complexity. There may be errors in mechanics, grammar, and usage that occasionally impede understanding, but the meaning is generally clear.
The student response to the prompt demonstrates limited command of the conventions of standard English at an appropriate level of complexity. There may be errors in mechanics, grammar, and usage that often impede understanding.
The student response to the prompt does not demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English at the appropriate level of complexity. Frequent and varied errors in mechanics, grammar, and usage impede understanding.
Knowledge of Language and Conventions is scored on a tighter 0 to 3 scale at every CMAS grade band, including Grades 4 to 5 where the first construct uses 0 to 4.
How to score with the CMAS Research Simulation and Literary Analysis Writing Rubric, Grades 4–5.
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.
Two-construct analytic, scored independently
- Score Reading Comprehension and Written Expression (0 to 4) first, then Knowledge of Language and Conventions (0 to 3). Sum for the rubric total out of 7.
- Each construct is scored independently. A response can earn 4 on Reading Comprehension and Written Expression and 2 on Conventions, or vice versa.
- The bump from Grade 3's 0-3 scale to the 0-4 scale at Grades 4-5 adds a separate descriptor for fully effective responses. A mostly accurate response that earned a 3 on the Grade 3 rubric now sits at 3 on a 5-point scale, with 4 reserved for fully accurate, fully effective work.
Five elements folded into the first construct
- Reading Comprehension and Written Expression at Grades 4-5 folds five elements into one construct, comprehension accuracy, appropriateness to task and audience, reasoning supported by text-based evidence, organization and coherence, and language use.
- To earn a 4, the response must satisfy all five elements at the top descriptor level. A strong response that lacks text-based evidence typically caps at 3.
- Start at the lowest score point and ask, does the response meet all five elements at this level? Move up only when it clearly does.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Awarding a 4 to a response with strong reasoning but no text-based evidence. Text-based evidence is one of the five required elements at every level.
- Confusing the 4 and the 3. A 3 is mostly accurate analysis with mostly clear reasoning. A 4 is fully accurate analysis with clear reasoning across the entire response.
- Forgetting that Knowledge of Language and Conventions stays on the 0-3 scale even though the first construct uses 0-4. The max for KLC is 3, not 4.
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 construct where graders are more than one point apart.
- Re-norm halfway through a long batch. Drift is real, and 5-point scales are easier to drift on than 4-point scales.
Notes for the CMAS RST/LAT Rubric, Grades 4–5
The Grades 4 to 5 CMAS RST and LAT rubric is the first grade band where the Reading Comprehension and Written Expression construct uses the 5-point scale (0 to 4). The added top descriptor at score 4 recognizes fully effective responses that go beyond mostly accurate analysis.
RST and LAT differ in source type. RST pairs informational text(s) with a writing prompt that asks students to research the topic and analyze it. LAT presents a literary text and asks students to analyze the literature. The scoring rubric is identical for both.
Knowledge of Language and Conventions stays on the 0 to 3 scale. The total maximum per PCR at Grades 4 to 5 is 7 points (4 + 3) for RST and LAT. The CMAS Grades 4 to 5 Narrative Task keeps Written Expression on the 0 to 3 scale; the 0 to 4 expansion applies only to RST and LAT at this grade band.
The CMAS rubric was developed collaboratively with PARCC. The descriptor language matches the PARCC framework adopted by Illinois (IAR) and other states.
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 satellites helped find a lost city
In the article, scientists found a lost ancient city in the desert by using technology in three smart ways: they took photos from satellites, they used special light filters to see through sand, and they compared old maps with new photos. Each step helped them find what their eyes alone could not see.
Photos from far above
The article explains that satellites can take photos of huge areas of land at one time, much bigger than any plane could cover. The article says one satellite image showed shapes that looked like a city outline, but they were buried under sand. Without that wide view, the scientists would not have known where to start looking.
Seeing through sand
Next, the article describes how scientists used special light filters on the satellite images. These filters can show heat patterns and changes in the soil that humans cannot see. The article says the filters made walls and buildings under the sand show up as bright lines on a screen. This is how the scientists could be sure something was really there.
Comparing old and new
Finally, the scientists compared the new satellite images with old maps that were drawn hundreds of years ago. The article says some of the old maps matched the bright lines exactly. That meant the city was the one described in old writings. Putting old knowledge together with new technology made the discovery real.
Conclusion
By using satellites, light filters, and old maps together, the scientists in the article found a lost city that ground searches had missed for years. The article shows that technology works best when it is combined with research from the past.
Full comprehension, accurate analysis, effective development
Response accurately identifies three ways scientists used technology (satellites, light filters, old maps) and analyzes how each contributed to the discovery. Each body paragraph develops one method with specific text-based evidence.
Full command at the grade 5 level
Sentence formation, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling are correct throughout. Sentence structures show some variety with embedded clauses. A few minor errors do not impede meaning.
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 CMAS Research Simulation and Literary Analysis Writing Rubric, Grades 4–5
What is the CMAS RST/LAT Writing Rubric for Grades 4 to 5?
Why does the scale change from 0-3 at Grade 3 to 0-4 at Grades 4-5?
How is RST different from LAT?
Does the Grades 4-5 Narrative Task also use the 0-4 scale?
Is this rubric the official version from CDE?
Where can I find the source document?
Can EnlightenAI score student writing using this rubric?
Use this rubric in EnlightenAI
Train EnlightenAI on the CMAS RST/LAT Writing Rubric, Grades 4–5 and start scoring student writing, with consistent per-construct feedback, in a single class period.