What this rubric measures
The LEAP 2025 LAT and RST Writing Rubric, Grades 6–10 is the official scoring guide used to evaluate student writing on Louisiana LEAP 2025 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 Louisiana Department of Education LEAP 2025 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 the 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 the claim or topic that is mostly appropriate to the 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 the claim or topic that is somewhat appropriate to the 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 the claim or topic that is limited in its appropriateness to the 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 the task, purpose, and audience;
- includes little to no text-based evidence;
- lacks organization and coherence;
- has an inappropriate style.
The Grades 6-10 LEAP 2025 LAT and RST share a single combined rubric. The construct combines reading comprehension of source ideas (stated explicitly and inferentially) with written expression of analysis, organization, and style. The style criterion replaces the language-clarity descriptor used at lower grades.
2 Knowledge of Language and Conventions
The student response 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 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 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 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.
The Knowledge of Language and Conventions construct uses identical descriptor language across LAT, RST, and NWT. The construct does not have a Score Point 4 column on the LDOE rubric; the maximum score is 3.
How to score with the LEAP 2025 LAT and RST Writing Rubric, Grades 6–10.
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.
- RC&WE uses the same 5-point scale (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as the Grades 4-5 rubric. The Conventions construct stays on the 0 to 3 scale used at every grade.
- LAT and RST share a single Grades 6-10 rubric. The descriptors apply identically to literary and informational source-based tasks.
What changes at Grades 6-10 (the style criterion)
- The Grades 6-10 rubric replaces the language-clarity descriptor used at lower grades with an explicit style criterion. A 4 establishes and maintains an effective style; a 3 mostly effective; a 2 somewhat effective; a 1 minimally effective; a 0 inappropriate.
- Style at this level includes voice, register, sentence variety, and the appropriateness of language choices to the source-based analytical task.
- Development language also shifts. The rubric expects 'effective and comprehensive development of the claim or topic' at the top score, where the Grades 4-5 rubric uses 'effective development of the topic.'
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Awarding 4 to a response with strong analysis but a generic or flat style. The style criterion is one of the five descriptors at every score above 0.
- Counting any unusual word choice as effective style. Style includes voice and register choices appropriate to the analytical task, not just vocabulary.
- Confusing comprehensive development with length. The rubric expects development that covers the claim or topic fully, not maximum word count.
Tips for norming with your team
- Anchor with 3 to 5 sample responses scored by your most experienced grader before the session, including responses that fall between 3 and 4 on style.
- 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, especially on the style criterion where qualitative judgment is heaviest.
Notes for the LEAP 2025 LAT and RST Rubric, Grades 6–10
Grades 6-10 LEAP 2025 LAT/RST uses a 0 to 4 scale on Reading Comprehension and Written Expression and a 0 to 3 scale on Knowledge of Language and Conventions, for a maximum of 7 points per rubric.
The major change at this grade band is the style criterion. The rubric replaces the language-clarity descriptor (used at Grade 3 and Grades 4-5) with an explicit style judgment. Graders should evaluate voice, register, sentence variety, and the appropriateness of language choices alongside the other four descriptors.
Development language also shifts to 'effective and comprehensive development of the claim or topic' at the top score. The Grades 4-5 rubric uses 'effective development of the topic.' The Grades 6-10 expectation is meaningfully higher.
LAT and RST differ in source material only (literary vs. informational), not in scoring. The same rubric and the same descriptor language apply.
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.
The argument for trees: how cities are rethinking urban canopy
For most of the twentieth century, American cities treated trees as decoration. The two articles in this set argue, both directly and by implication, that this attitude is wrong. Read together, the articles make the case that urban trees are infrastructure: they reduce heat, support public health, and address historic inequities in ways no other municipal investment can match.
Trees as climate infrastructure
The first article opens with a study of summer surface temperatures in three U.S. cities, showing that neighborhoods with dense tree cover are measurably cooler, sometimes by ten degrees or more, than neighborhoods with little canopy. The author frames this not as a matter of comfort but as a matter of survival, citing data on heat-related hospitalizations during summer waves. The implicit argument is that trees do the work of municipal infrastructure: cooling the built environment in ways that air conditioning and concrete cannot.
Public health and equity
The second article extends this argument by focusing on disparities. The author maps tree cover against historical redlining boundaries in several major cities and finds that the neighborhoods denied investment in the 1930s remain the neighborhoods with the lowest canopy today. The article presents this overlap as evidence that planting trees is not just an environmental choice but a corrective one, restoring a public good that was unevenly distributed for generations.
A reframing of municipal priorities
Both articles converge on a reframing: trees should be funded, maintained, and expanded with the same seriousness that cities apply to roads, water mains, and transit. The first author calls this a shift from 'beautification' to 'infrastructure,' while the second focuses on equity outcomes. The arguments are complementary rather than competing, and the combined effect is to make a single claim with two supporting strands.
Conclusion
Taken together, the two articles argue that urban trees are not amenities but essential infrastructure that addresses heat, health, and historic injustice. The authors do not minimize the cost or complexity of large-scale tree investment, but they make a clear case that the benefits, measured in lives saved and inequities reduced, justify the expense. Their combined argument is one cities should take seriously.
Full comprehension, comprehensive development, effective style
Demonstrates full comprehension of explicit and inferential ideas (synthesis across both articles). Effective and comprehensive development of the claim (trees as infrastructure). Clear reasoning supported by relevant evidence from both sources. Effectively organized.
Full command of secondary conventions
Sentence structures are varied and effectively controlled at Grade 9 complexity. Capitalization, punctuation, and spelling are correct throughout. Quoted material handled correctly. Grammar and usage are strong. Earns full credit on the 0 to 3 Conventions scale.
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 LEAP 2025 LAT and RST Writing Rubric, Grades 6–10
What is the LEAP 2025 LAT and RST Writing Rubric for Grades 6 to 10?
How does the Grades 6-10 rubric differ from the Grades 4-5 LAT/RST rubric?
What does the style criterion expect?
Do LAT and RST use the same Grades 6-10 rubric?
Is this rubric the official version from LDOE?
Where can I find the source document?
Can EnlightenAI score student writing using this rubric?
Use this rubric in EnlightenAI
Train EnlightenAI on the LEAP 2025 LAT and RST Writing Rubric, Grades 6–10, and start scoring student writing, with consistent per-construct feedback, in a single class period.