What this rubric measures
The KAP MDPT Argument Writing Rubric, High School is the official scoring guide used to evaluate student writing on Kansas Assessment Program assessments. It is an Analytic rubric that scores responses across 5 distinct criteria, allowing teachers to give precise, targeted feedback on each area of writing.
All 5 scoring criteria
Click any criterion to expand its score level descriptors. The language below is taken verbatim from the official Kansas State Department of Education Assessment Program scoring guide.
1 Focus/Argument
Student's response:
- States a clear argument related to the resources and prompt and maintains it throughout the work
- Effectively distinguishes main argument from alternate or opposing arguments
Student's response:
- States a clear argument related to resources and prompt and mostly maintains it throughout the work
- Attempts to distinguish main argument from alternate or opposing arguments
Student's response:
- States a somewhat clear argument, which may lose focus from time to time throughout the work
- Recognizes alternate or opposing arguments, but does not adequately distinguish them from the main argument
Student's response:
- Does not state a clear argument, or stated argument is unrelated to resources or prompt
- Does not recognize or distinguish main argument from alternate or opposing arguments
Focus/Argument at High School adds a second scored sub-element, the distinction between the main argument and alternate or opposing arguments. Both sub-elements are evaluated together to assign one PL on the trait.
2 Evidence
Student's response:
- Uses relevant and accurate details/evidence from two or more resources to support argument
Student's response:
- Uses mostly relevant and accurate details/evidence from two or more resources to support argument
Student's response:
- Uses some relevant and accurate details/evidence from one or more resources to support argument
Student's response:
- Does not use relevant and accurate details or evidence from resources to support argument
Evidence at High School matches the Grades 6-8 requirement of two or more resources at PL 3 and PL 4. The expectation does not increase further at HS; the scoring rigor and trait count do.
3 Argument
Student's response:
- Consistently uses grade-appropriate strategies to clarify relationships between and among ideas, and to connect evidence to argument
- Consistently and accurately uses domain-specific words to develop and support argument
Student's response:
- Adequately uses grade-appropriate strategies to clarify relationships between and among ideas and to connect evidence to argument
- Adequately uses domain-specific words to develop and support argument
Student's response:
- Inconsistently uses grade-appropriate strategies to clarify relationships between and among ideas and to connect evidence to argument
- Inconsistently uses domain-specific words to develop and support argument
Student's response:
- Shows little or no attempt to clarify relationships between and among ideas or connect evidence to argument
- Uses few or no domain-specific words to develop and support argument
The Argument trait at High School has the same two sub-elements as Grades 6-8: connection strategies that link ideas and evidence to argument, plus consistent and accurate use of domain-specific vocabulary. Both are evaluated together to assign one PL.
4 Introduction and Conclusion
Student's response:
- Includes an effective and grade-appropriate introduction and conclusion
Student's response:
- Includes an adequate and grade-appropriate introduction and conclusion
Student's response:
- Might include a grade-appropriate introduction or conclusion, but one or both are weak.
Student's response:
- Does not include an introduction or a conclusion.
Introduction and Conclusion is a separate trait only at High School (not at Grades 3-5 or Grades 6-8 Argument). It evaluates the framing of the response at opening and close, independent of the argument's content.
5 Conventions
Student's response:
- Is readable and uses almost all grade-level conventions correctly and may use them creatively to enhance the message; minor mistakes do not impede the reader's ability to understand the writer's meaning
Student's response:
- Is readable with most grade-level conventions used correctly; mistakes do not affect the reader's ability to understand the writer's meaning
Student's response:
- Is readable but some errors negatively impact the reader's ability to understand the writer's meaning
Student's response:
- Is nearly unreadable due to pervasive errors in standard conventions
The Conventions PL 4 descriptor at High School strengthens slightly from grades below (almost all grade-level conventions correctly, where lower bands say most). PL 1 also tightens to pervasive errors in standard conventions, not grade-level.
How to score with the KAP MDPT Argument Writing Rubric, High School.
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.
Five traits, scored independently
- Score Focus/Argument, Evidence, Argument, Introduction and Conclusion, and Conventions independently. Each trait is on a PL 1 to 4 scale.
- Focus/Argument and Argument both have two sub-elements. Both sub-elements at a PL are required to award that PL on the trait.
- There is no overall composite score in the rubric. Per-trait PL scores are the rubric output.
Alternate-argument distinction is the HS upgrade
- Focus/Argument at HS requires the response to effectively distinguish the main argument from alternate or opposing arguments at PL 4.
- Recognizing the opposing view without distinguishing it from the main argument scores PL 2, not PL 3. The distinguish verb is the rubric's specific expectation.
- PL 3 requires the response to attempt to distinguish, not just acknowledge. A brief mention of the other side without contrast typically caps at PL 2.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Folding Introduction and Conclusion into Focus/Argument. They are separate traits at HS and must be scored separately.
- Capping a strong HS response at PL 3 on Focus/Argument because the alternate-argument move is brief. If the writer effectively distinguishes the alternate from the main argument, PL 4 applies even if the discussion is short.
- Letting Conventions slide because the response is long. The PL 4 descriptor at HS requires almost all grade-level conventions correctly.
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 trait where graders are more than one PL apart.
- Re-norm halfway through a long batch. Drift is real.
Notes for the KAP MDPT Argument Rubric, High School
High School is the first KAP grade band where the response must engage with alternate or opposing arguments. The Focus/Argument trait at PL 4 requires the writer to effectively distinguish the main argument from alternate or opposing arguments. PL 3 requires an attempt to distinguish. PL 2 recognizes alternates but does not distinguish them.
Introduction and Conclusion is a separate trait at HS for the first time. Grades 3-5 and Grades 6-8 rubrics do not score introduction and conclusion as their own trait. A strong argument that opens and closes weakly will lose points on this trait specifically.
Conventions at HS uses a slightly tighter PL 4 descriptor (almost all grade-level conventions correctly, rather than the Grades 3-5/6-8 most grade-level conventions). PL 1 also references standard conventions rather than grade-level conventions, reflecting the closer-to-adult expectations at HS.
Domain-specific vocabulary continues as the second sub-element inside the Argument trait. At HS the expectation is for consistent and accurate use; using a few technical words once does not earn PL 4.
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.
Why our state should pilot a universal basic income program
A guaranteed monthly cash transfer to every adult resident is no longer a fringe policy proposal. Our state should launch a multi-year UBI pilot for low-income residents because the rigorous studies cited in the article demonstrate measurable employment and well-being gains, the infographic shows that administrative overhead is lower than that of existing means-tested programs, and the strongest opposing argument, that UBI discourages work, is not supported by the experimental evidence.
Pilot evidence supports modest, real gains
The article summarizes two randomized controlled trials, one from Stockton, California, and one from Finland, that found UBI recipients were more likely to be employed full-time after twelve months than non-recipients. Employment gains were modest in percentage terms but statistically significant. Both studies also reported lower self-reported anxiety and improved financial decision-making.
Lower administrative overhead than means-tested programs
The infographic compares per-dollar overhead across three program types: SNAP, TANF, and a UBI pilot. Means-tested programs require eligibility verification, recertification, and case management; a flat UBI pilot reduces this overhead to address verification only. This is not the central argument for UBI, but it weakens a common cost-based objection.
The opposing argument, examined and distinguished
The opinion piece argues that any unconditional cash transfer reduces labor supply because it weakens the link between work and income. This concern is principled and worth taking seriously. But the experimental evidence cited above does not support it: in the two largest RCTs to date, employment rose modestly rather than falling. The opposing view rests on a theoretical labor-economics model; the proposal here rests on empirical pilot data. The two should not be conflated.
Conclusion
A multi-year state pilot would let our state generate its own empirical evidence rather than rely on out-of-state studies. The available evidence supports modest gains; the administrative case is favorable; the principled opposing argument is at odds with the experimental record. The state should pilot.
Clear argument, effectively distinguishes opposing view
Argument is stated in the intro and maintained throughout. The opposing argument (UBI reduces labor supply) is explicitly named and distinguished from the writer's position by contrasting theoretical model and experimental data. Satisfies PL 4.
Relevant evidence from all three resources, with domain vocabulary
Evidence drawn from the article (Stockton and Finland RCTs), the infographic (overhead comparison), and the opinion piece. Domain vocabulary (RCT, means-tested, labor supply, recertification) used consistently and accurately. Matches PL 4 on Evidence and Argument.
Effective framing with creative use of conventions
Introduction names three arguments and previews the alternate-argument distinction. Conclusion returns to all three and adds a new policy frame. Almost all grade-level conventions are correct; some constructions show stylistic precision. Matches PL 4 on both traits.
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 KAP MDPT Argument Writing Rubric, High School
What is the KAP High School Argument writing rubric?
What is the alternate-argument distinction at High School?
How is the High School rubric different from the Grades 6-8 rubric?
Does the alternate-argument move have to be long?
Why is Introduction and Conclusion a separate trait at HS but not at lower grades?
Is this rubric the official version from KSDE?
Where can I find the source document?
Can EnlightenAI score student writing using this rubric?
Use this rubric in EnlightenAI
Train EnlightenAI on the KAP MDPT Argument Writing Rubric, High School and start scoring student writing, with consistent per-trait feedback, in a single class period.