What this rubric measures
The NH-SAS Informative-Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 3–5 is the official scoring guide used to evaluate student writing on New Hampshire NH-SAS 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 New Hampshire Department of Education NH-SAS scoring guide.
1 Statement of Purpose/Focus and Organization
The response is fully sustained and consistently and purposefully focused:
- controlling idea or main idea of a topic is focused, clearly stated, and strongly maintained
- controlling idea or main idea of a topic is introduced and communicated clearly within the purpose, audience, and task
- The response has a clear and effective organizational structure creating unity and completeness
- use of a variety of transitional strategies to clarify the relationships between and among ideas
- logical progression of ideas from beginning to end
- effective introduction and conclusion for audience and purpose
The response is adequately sustained and generally focused:
- focus is clear and for the most part maintained, though some loosely related material may be present
- some context for the controlling idea or main idea of the topic is adequate within the purpose, audience, and task
- The response has an evident organizational structure and a sense of completeness, though there may be minor flaws and some ideas may be loosely connected
- adequate use of transitional strategies with some variety to clarify the relationships between and among ideas
- adequate progression of ideas from beginning to end
- adequate introduction and conclusion
The response is somewhat sustained and may have a minor drift in focus:
- may be clearly focused on the controlling or main idea, but is insufficiently sustained
- controlling idea or main idea may be unclear and somewhat unfocused
- The response has an inconsistent organizational structure, and flaws are evident
- inconsistent use of transitional strategies with little variety
- uneven progression of ideas from beginning to end
- conclusion and introduction, if present, are weak
The response may be related to the topic but may provide little or no focus:
- may be very brief
- may have a major drift
- focus may be confusing or ambiguous
- The response has little or no discernible organizational structure
- few or no transitional strategies are evident
- frequent extraneous ideas may intrude
Non-scorable code: Insufficient, illegible, foreign language, incoherent, off-topic, or off-purpose writing.
2 Evidence/Elaboration
The response provides thorough and convincing support/evidence for the controlling idea or main idea that includes the effective use of sources, facts, and details:
- use of evidence from sources is smoothly integrated, comprehensive, and relevant
- effective use of a variety of elaborative techniques
- The response clearly and effectively expresses ideas, using precise language
- use of academic and domain-specific vocabulary is clearly appropriate for the audience and purpose
The response provides adequate support/evidence for the controlling idea or main idea that includes the use of sources, facts, and details:
- some evidence from sources is integrated, though citations may be general or imprecise
- adequate use of some elaborative techniques
- The response adequately expresses ideas, employing a mix of precise with more general language
- use of domain-specific vocabulary is generally appropriate for the audience and purpose
The response provides uneven, cursory support/evidence for the controlling idea or main idea that includes partial or uneven use of sources, facts, and details:
- evidence from sources is weakly integrated, and citations, if present, are uneven
- weak or uneven use of elaborative techniques
- The response expresses ideas unevenly, using simplistic language
- use of domain-specific vocabulary that may at times be inappropriate for the audience and purpose
The response provides minimal support/evidence for the controlling idea or main idea that includes little or no use of sources, facts, and details:
- use of evidence from the source material is minimal, absent, in error, or irrelevant
- The response expression of ideas is vague, lacks clarity, or is confusing
- uses limited language or domain-specific vocabulary
- may have little sense of audience and purpose
Non-scorable code: Insufficient, illegible, foreign language, incoherent, off-topic, or off-purpose writing.
3 Conventions/Editing
The response demonstrates an adequate command of conventions:
- some errors in usage and sentence formation are present, but no systematic pattern of errors is displayed
- adequate use of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling
The response demonstrates partial command of conventions:
- errors in usage may obscure meaning
- inconsistent use of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling
The response demonstrates a lack of command of conventions.
The Conventions/Editing rubric begins at score point 2. The 4-point levels do not apply to this domain by design.
How to score with the NH-SAS Informative-Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 3–5.
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.
Three-domain analytic, scored independently
- Score Statement of Purpose/Focus and Organization (0 to 4) first, then Evidence/Elaboration (0 to 4), then Conventions/Editing (0 to 2). Sum for a rubric total out of 10.
- Each domain is scored independently. A response can earn 4 on Purpose but only 2 on Evidence.
- Conventions has only 3 score points (0, 1, 2) on a tighter scale than the first two domains by design.
Apply descriptors literally
- Start at the lowest score point and ask, does the response meet the bullets at this level? Move up only when it clearly satisfies the next level's bullets.
- The lead sentence (fully sustained vs. adequately sustained) anchors the score point. The bullets describe what writing at that score point looks like.
- If a response sits between two score points, default to the lower one.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Letting a clear controlling idea halo weak source use. Evidence/Elaboration is scored on its own bullets.
- Confusing length with quality. A long essay with general source references still earns Evidence/Elaboration 3, not 4.
- Penalizing surface errors in Purpose or Evidence when the rubric only scores them under Conventions/Editing.
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 NH-SAS Informative-Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 3–5
NH-SAS Grades 3-5 Informative-Explanatory is the explanatory-writing rubric in the modular interim writing set. It focuses on a controlling or main idea developed through source-based evidence rather than an opinion or claim.
NH-SAS informative prompts at Grades 3-5 typically provide one or more short source texts. The rubric expects evidence drawn from those sources at score points 3 and 4. Responses that ignore the sources will typically cap Evidence/Elaboration at 2.
Conventions/Editing on NH-SAS is scored on a 3-point scale (0, 1, 2) that begins at score point 2 in the rubric. The 4-point bullets in Purpose and Evidence do not apply to Conventions by design.
Non-scorable codes apply to insufficient, illegible, foreign language, incoherent, off-topic, or off-purpose writing. These cannot earn points across the three domains.
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 honeybees matter to plants and people
Honeybees are one of the most important insects on our planet because they help plants reproduce, they pollinate the food we eat, and their population is in danger. Without honeybees, many of the fruits and vegetables we love would disappear.
How pollination works
The article explains that when a honeybee visits a flower to collect nectar, tiny grains of pollen stick to the fuzzy hairs on its body. When it flies to the next flower, some of that pollen rubs off. This is how plants make seeds and grow new flowers. Without honeybees moving pollen from flower to flower, many plants would not be able to reproduce at all.
Pollinating our food
According to the article, honeybees pollinate about one third of the food humans eat. This includes apples, almonds, blueberries, and pumpkins. If honeybees disappeared, farmers would have a hard time growing these foods. The article says that some farmers in California even rent beehives to make sure their almond trees get pollinated each spring.
Why honeybees are in trouble
The article also explains that honeybee populations have been shrinking. Pesticides, loss of wildflowers, and a sickness called colony collapse have all hurt honeybees. Scientists are working to figure out exactly what is causing the decline so they can help protect the bees.
Conclusion
Honeybees pollinate flowers, they help grow the food we eat, and they need our help to survive. They may be small, but they are one of the most important animals on Earth.
Controlling idea is clear and fully sustained
Controlling idea is stated clearly in the intro (three reasons honeybees are important) and strongly maintained across three body paragraphs and a satisfying conclusion.
Evidence is integrated but citations stay general
Evidence from the article is integrated across all three reasons (pollination mechanics, food list, colony collapse). Citations are general (the article explains, the article says) rather than precisely cited.
Adequate command of conventions
Sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling are correct throughout. There are no systematic patterns of errors. Earns full credit on the NH-SAS 0-2 Conventions/Editing sub-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 NH-SAS Informative-Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 3–5
What is the NH-SAS Informative-Explanatory Writing Rubric for Grades 3 to 5?
What is the difference between the NH-SAS opinion and informative rubrics?
How many sources do NH-SAS informative prompts give students?
How is Conventions/Editing scored on NH-SAS?
Is this rubric the official version from the NH 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 NH-SAS Informative-Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 3–5 and start scoring student writing, with consistent per-domain feedback, in a single class period.