What this rubric measures
The CMAS Research Simulation and Literary Analysis Writing Rubric, Grades 6–8 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 inferentially by providing an accurate analysis;
- addresses the prompt and provides effective and comprehensive development of the claim or topic that is consistently appropriate to task, purpose, and audience;
- uses clear reasoning supported by relevant text-based evidence in the development of the claim or topic;
- is effectively organized with clear and coherent writing;
- establishes and maintains an effective style.
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 claim or topic that is mostly appropriate to task, purpose, and audience;
- uses mostly clear reasoning supported by relevant text-based evidence in the development of the claim or topic;
- is organized with mostly clear and coherent writing;
- establishes and maintains a mostly effective style.
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 claim or topic that is somewhat appropriate to task, purpose, and audience;
- uses some reasoning and text-based evidence in the development of the claim or topic;
- demonstrates some organization with somewhat coherent writing;
- has a style that is somewhat effective.
The student response:
- demonstrates limited comprehension of ideas stated explicitly and/or inferentially by providing a minimally accurate analysis;
- addresses the prompt and provides minimal development of claim or topic that is limited in its appropriateness to task, purpose, and audience;
- uses limited reasoning and text-based evidence;
- demonstrates limited organization and coherence;
- has a style that is minimally effective.
The student response:
- demonstrates no comprehension of ideas by providing an inaccurate or no analysis;
- is undeveloped and/or inappropriate to task, purpose, and audience;
- includes little to no text-based evidence;
- lacks organization and coherence;
- has an inappropriate style.
At Grades 6 to 8, the construct adds an effective style descriptor. Style is part of the scored work at this grade band but is not part of the Grade 3 or Grades 4-5 RST/LAT rubrics.
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 6 to 8 where the first construct uses 0 to 4.
How to score with the CMAS Research Simulation and Literary Analysis Writing Rubric, Grades 6–8.
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.
- At Grades 6-8, the language shifts from topic to claim or topic. RST tasks may ask for a claim; LAT tasks often ask for an analytical claim about the literary text.
Effective style is now part of the construct
- Grades 6-8 adds an effective style descriptor at score levels 1 through 4. Style is part of the scored work; the Grades 3 and Grades 4-5 RST/LAT rubrics did not include it.
- Effective style means appropriate voice, sentence variety, and language choices that match an academic analytical task. A casual or conversational voice on a Grades 6-8 RST response typically caps the construct at 2.
- Style is folded into one construct with comprehension, development, evidence, and organization, not scored as a separate sixth element.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Awarding a 4 to a response with strong analysis but a casual voice. The effective style bullet at Grades 6-8 keeps casual responses out of score 4.
- Treating style as a separate fix-up issue. Style is part of the first construct, not Conventions; a response with good mechanics but weak style does not earn KLC compensation for it.
- 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, especially on style judgments.
- Re-norm halfway through a long batch. Drift is real, and style judgments are easier to drift on than comprehension judgments.
Notes for the CMAS RST/LAT Rubric, Grades 6–8
The Grades 6 to 8 CMAS RST and LAT rubric adds an effective style descriptor to the Reading Comprehension and Written Expression construct. Style appears at every score level (effective at 4, mostly effective at 3, somewhat effective at 2, minimally effective at 1, inappropriate at 0).
The construct language also shifts to claim or topic. RST tasks at Grades 6-8 commonly require students to develop a claim about a research topic; LAT tasks require an analytical claim about the literary text. The rubric accommodates either.
Knowledge of Language and Conventions stays on the 0 to 3 scale. The total maximum per PCR at Grades 6 to 8 is 7 points (4 + 3) for RST and LAT. The Grades 6-8 Narrative Task also uses the 0 to 4 scale for Written Expression, so the Narrative max also moves to 7.
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.
What is driving the renewable energy boom
Three factors have driven the rapid growth of renewable energy in the past decade: dramatic cost declines in solar and wind technology, supportive government policies, and increasing pressure from climate science. Together, these forces have shifted renewable energy from a niche option to a mainstream source of electricity.
Costs have fallen dramatically
Source 1 reports that the cost of solar panels dropped by 89 percent between 2010 and 2020, and the cost of wind turbines fell by 70 percent over the same period. According to the article, solar electricity in many places is now cheaper than electricity from coal or natural gas. This shift means that even utility companies focused purely on profit have a financial reason to invest in renewables.
Government policies have created stable markets
Source 2 explains that tax credits, renewable portfolio standards, and direct investments from federal and state governments have given developers confidence to build large projects. The article points out that the United States Inflation Reduction Act alone is projected to drive over 500 billion dollars in clean energy spending. Without long-term policy support, the article argues, investment would be much more cautious.
Climate science has shaped demand
Both Source 1 and Source 2 connect the growth of renewables to mounting climate science, including reports from the IPCC that warn carbon emissions must drop quickly to avoid the worst climate impacts. Source 2 quotes one analyst who said that public concern about climate has shifted from background noise to a primary driver of corporate energy decisions in less than ten years.
Conclusion
The convergence of falling costs, supportive policy, and urgent climate science explains why renewable energy has grown so fast in the past decade. The combined evidence from both articles suggests these three forces will likely continue to reinforce one another in the coming years.
Full comprehension, accurate analysis, effective style throughout
Response identifies three drivers and analyzes how each contributes. Each body paragraph develops one factor with specific text-based evidence from both sources (89 percent cost drop, 500 billion dollars, IPCC). Organization is clear.
Full command at the grade 8 level
Sentence structures are varied with embedded clauses. Punctuation, capitalization, and spelling are correct. Percentages, dollar amounts, and proper nouns (IPCC, Inflation Reduction Act) are formatted correctly. 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 6–8
What is the CMAS RST/LAT Writing Rubric for Grades 6 to 8?
How does the Grades 6-8 rubric differ from the Grade 3 and Grades 4-5 rubrics?
How is RST different from LAT at Grades 6-8?
Does the Grades 6-8 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 6–8 and start scoring student writing, with consistent per-construct feedback, in a single class period.