Assessment Suite — Economic Democracy Curriculum

The principle behind every rubric here. This course teaches how to think, not what to think — so these rubrics never grade which side a student lands on. They grade whether the student steelmanned the opposing view fairly, used the analytical tools, took a clear position, and honestly named what their position costs. A student who argues against the teacher's view, or against the curriculum's own framing, can and should score Exemplary if the reasoning is sound. Grading agreement would betray the whole method.

01The Defended-Argument Rubric

The flagship — for the primer write tasks, essays, and the Define & Defend capstone. Use it anywhere a student must take and defend a position. The first two criteria carry the most weight: steelmanning and counting the cost are the habits the whole course is built to instill.

Criterion	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Steelmans the opposing viewGrants the other side its real strength	4States the strongest version of the opposing view so well its own defenders would approve; treats it as genuinely tempting.	3Represents the opposing view fairly and accurately, without distortion.	2Mentions the opposing view but weakly, or only its easiest-to-defeat form.	1Ignores or strawmans the opposing view.
Counts the costNames the tradeoff of their own stance	4Names precisely what their own position sacrifices or risks, and argues it's worth it anyway — eyes open.	3Acknowledges a real cost or downside to their own position.	2Gestures at a downside but treats their position as nearly cost-free.	1Presents their position as having no costs or tradeoffs at all.
Takes a clear stanceCommits to a defensible position	4Stakes out a precise, non-obvious position and holds it consistently throughout.	3Takes a clear position and defends it.	2Position is vague, hedged, or drifts.	1No discernible position; summary without a stance.
Uses the toolsApplies the analytical concepts	4Deploys the relevant concepts and levers precisely and correctly to drive the argument.	3Uses relevant concepts correctly to support the argument.	2References concepts loosely or with minor errors.	1Few or no concepts used; argues from opinion alone.
Evidence & reasoningBacks claims, reasons clearly	4Marshals specific, relevant evidence; reasoning is tight and each step earns the next.	3Supports claims with evidence; reasoning mostly holds.	2Some evidence, but thin or loosely connected to claims.	1Assertion without support.

02The Deliberation & Discussion Rubric

For Socratic seminars, structured discussion, and ongoing participation. Assesses whether a student can think with others, not just perform an opinion — the collaborative half of the course's habits of mind. Use it formatively across a unit rather than for a single day.

Criterion	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Builds on othersListens and responds	4Listens closely and advances the conversation by building on, refining, or respectfully challenging others' points by name.	3Responds to others and connects their contributions to the discussion.	2Contributes, but mostly in parallel — doesn't engage what others said.	1Waits to talk; ignores the thread of discussion.
Argues from evidenceReasons, not just reacts	4Grounds points in concepts and evidence; distinguishes what they know from what they suspect.	3Supports points with reasons and some evidence.	2Offers opinions with little support.	1Asserts feelings as facts.
Holds both sidesCan argue what they don't believe	4Voices the strongest case for a view they don't hold, and helps the room see it fairly.	3Can acknowledge and articulate opposing views.	2Acknowledges other views exist but won't engage them.	1Treats their own view as the only reasonable one.
Intellectual courage & humilityHolds or changes with reasons	4Changes position when the argument warrants — or holds firm with reasons — and says so openly.	3Open to other views; gives reasons for holding or shifting.	2Rarely reconsiders; or shifts with no reason given.	1Rigid regardless of argument, or agrees with whoever spoke last.

03The Role-Play & Deliberation-Lab Rubric

For the Civic Economy Role-Play Lab and any simulation where students argue an assigned role. The signature criterion is separating role from self: the ability to argue a position you personally reject is the deepest form of the course's "steelman" skill, performed live.

Criterion	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Inhabits the roleArgues the role's real interests	4Represents the assigned stakeholder's genuine interests and best arguments convincingly, as they would themselves.	3Represents the role's interests accurately.	2Plays the role thinly or slips into caricature.	1Doesn't engage the assigned role.
Separates role from selfArgues a view they may reject	4Argues the assigned position with full force even when it conflicts with personal views; never breaks to editorialize.	3Maintains the assigned position throughout.	2Wavers, or lets personal views leak into the role.	1Abandons the role to argue their own opinion.
Negotiates with the toolsUses concepts in real time	4Wields the relevant economic concepts to make and counter arguments live, adapting to others' moves.	3Uses relevant concepts to support the role's case.	2Argues mostly from position, with few concepts.	1Argues from assertion alone.
Toward a workable outcomeBuilds, not just blocks	4Pushes for the role's interests while helping the group reach a real, defensible decision; finds tradeoffs others miss.	3Advances the role's interests and engages in genuine negotiation.	2Holds a position but won't move toward resolution.	1Disengaged or purely obstructive.

04Worked Sample — The Data Center Decision

One complete performance assessment, anchored on the Platforms & Power unit and its Role-Play Lab, showing the rubrics in action. It pairs a live role-play (Rubric 3) with an individual defended argument written afterward (Rubric 1) — the standard two-part shape for a unit assessment in this course.

Performance Assessment · Platforms & Power

Should the town approve the data center?

The scenario

A major tech company proposes building a large AI data center in a mid-sized town. It promises jobs and tax revenue, but will consume enormous amounts of water and electricity, raise local utility costs, and hand the company significant power over the town's infrastructure. The town council must decide. Students are assigned roles — company representative, town council member, local resident, utility worker, environmental advocate, small business owner — and deliberate to a decision.

Part 1 · The role-play (assessed with Rubric 3)

Students argue their assigned role's genuine interests in a live council deliberation, using the unit's concepts — network effects, monopoly power, the commons, who captures the value of shared resources. The assessment is not whether their side "wins," but how well they inhabit the role, hold it under pressure, and negotiate with the tools toward a real decision.

Part 2 · The defended argument (assessed with Rubric 1)

Afterward, each student writes individually, in their own voice this time: Should the town approve the data center? Take a position and defend it. This is where role-play becomes personal judgment — and where the defended-argument rubric applies.

What strong work looks like here

Exemplary: "The town should approve it, with binding conditions." Grants the opponents' strongest point fully — that the company gains lasting leverage over a captured community and the water cost may be irreversible (steelman). Argues approval anyway, because the jobs and revenue are real and the conditions can bound the risk — while naming exactly what's being gambled: if the company leaves, the town is stuck with the costs (counts the cost). Uses network effects and the commons precisely to explain why the leverage forms. Lands a reform-test answer: the smallest conditions that capture the benefit while limiting the town's exposure.
Proficient: Takes a clear position, represents the other side fairly, names a real downside, and uses the concepts correctly — but the steelman is competent rather than compelling, or the cost is acknowledged without being fully reckoned with.
Developing: Picks a side and gives reasons, but the opposing view is thin, the position reads as cost-free, and concepts are loose.
Beginning: "Data centers are good/bad." Asserts a side with no engagement of the other, no named cost, and no tools.

Why this shape

The two parts assess different things the course cares about: the role-play tests whether a student can argue a view not their own (Rubric 3); the essay tests whether they can then reach and defend a view that is theirs (Rubric 1). A student might argue fiercely for the company in the role-play and conclude against approval in the essay — and score Exemplary on both. That gap between role and conviction is exactly the intellectual capacity the course exists to build.

Adapting these. All three rubrics are concept-agnostic — swap the Data Center scenario for any unit (the Wealth Divide, Boom & Bust, the Founding Argument) and the criteria still apply, because they grade reasoning, not topic. The two-part shape (role-play + individual defended argument) is the recommended template for any unit assessment; for shorter checks, the defended-argument rubric alone works on any primer write task.

How to Grade the Thinking