Make the learning visible.

E1: unpack a dense task sentence, compare it with oral evidence, explain a redesign in one evidence paragraph. E2: synthesize task/performance/regulation in a recommendation with a counterclaim and revision note.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Sentence/format analysis tied to evidence; explanation does not lower the goal; E2 treats the regulation’s scope accurately and answers a real objection.

Analyze how the assignment and a policy explainer construct competence, then write a qualified argument for a design response using all three evidence types.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Identifies audience assumptions; develops a defensible claim, not a diagnosis; synthesizes records/regulation; commentary evaluates rival explanation. Skills 1.B, 2.B, 3.A, 4.B–C, 6.A, 8.B.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

MYP: compare task/transcript and create an accessible explainer with design commentary.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• MYP A–D: source-based comparison, organized rationale, purposeful text, accurate register.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

DP Language and Literature: guided analysis of how task/policy language positions its reader; supporting source note on legal scope.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• DP criteria A–D practice: interprets reader positioning; evaluates language/structure; sustains textual focus; avoids turning analysis into a medical/legal conclusion.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Mini assessment-design brief specifying construct, possible confounds, two equivalent demonstrations and evidence that would challenge the preferred redesign.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Operational definition of the goal; comparisons preserve demands; limitations acknowledged; no causal claim from one performance; no diagnosis.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about earnings, itemized deductions and take-home pay; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of earnings, itemized deductions and take-home pay.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Argue which changes to a first-paycheck explanation would most help a new worker ask a useful payroll question. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle earnings, itemized deductions and take-home pay.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about earnings, itemized deductions and take-home pay, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to earnings, itemized deductions and take-home pay.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do labels, visual grouping and direct address in a pay statement or employee explainer shape a first-time worker’s understanding? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Test the same explainer against two fictional pay statements with different deductions and identify what would require current payroll information. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles earnings, itemized deductions and take-home pay.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about federal starting rule, exceptions and one university’s permission process; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of federal starting rule, exceptions and one university’s permission process.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Recommend how a university should explain bill payment and record permissions to students and families without promising complete secrecy. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle federal starting rule, exceptions and one university’s permission process.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about federal starting rule, exceptions and one university’s permission process, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to federal starting rule, exceptions and one university’s permission process.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How does a university access form use sequence, labels and modal language to construct the student’s role and the family’s expectations? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Compare two universities’ published processes with the federal starting rule and identify a question the comparison cannot settle. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles federal starting rule, exceptions and one university’s permission process.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

E1: close annotation of crop, caption and two pivotal word choices, then one analytical paragraph and correction. E2: a multi-paragraph analysis comparing emphasis across three sources and a revision memo.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Every meaning claim points to wording/layout; commentary explains the effect rather than naming a device; correction preserves scope; E2 integrates rather than lists sources.

Rhetorical analysis of how caption and omission invite a conclusion, followed by two audience-specific corrections and a defensible rationale.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Situates audience/purpose; explains two choices with textual evidence; commentary links choice to likely effect; qualification distinguishes likely response from proven impact. Skills 1.A, 2.B, 3.A, 4.C, 6.A, 7.A, 8.A.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

MYP: compare post/original (A), organize an evidence note (B), create correction (C), adapt register (D).

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• MYP: supported comparison and intentional audience choices.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

DP Language and Literature: guided textual analysis of the post’s wording, image/crop and layout.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• DP criteria A–D practice: interpreted meaning with references (A), evaluated authorial choices (B), focused argument (C), clear analytical language (D).

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Independently corroborated evidence dossier plus two plausible interpretations, a correction policy and a revision-trigger note.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Traceable independent source; tests strongest rival interpretation; separates uncertainty from indecision; repair policy is feasible and proportional.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

E1: annotate proposal language and budget labels; write a claim-evidence-commentary paragraph. E2: synthesize budget and stakeholder comments into a cohesive argument with a fair counterclaim.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Figures interpreted accurately; commentary connects cost/access; distinguishes stakeholders’ priorities from established effects; conclusion follows the argument.

Synthesis argument recommending one option or amendment, using budget and competing perspectives; revise into a concise board comment.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Thesis takes a defensible position; sources interact in reasoning; fair counterargument; qualification reflects the budget’s limitations; audience-focused revision. Skills 2.B, 3.A/C, 4.A–C, 6.A–C, 8.A.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

MYP: compare proposal/budget/comment, organize an options note and create a public comment.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• MYP A–D: evidence-based comparison, source organization, audience-conscious text and precise terms.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

DP Language and Literature: analyze how the proposal’s wording, visual hierarchy and data display frame access/fairness; optional separate comment.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• DP criteria A–D practice: interpretation supported by exact design/text details; evaluates how form constructs the issue; focused structure; effective analytical register.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Decision memo with explicit criteria, a budget sensitivity check, distributional effects, strongest opposing option and a monitoring/revision plan.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Reproducible comparison; justified criteria; changed-assumption test; identifies who benefits/bears cost; conditional recommendation and measurable follow-up.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about concern, actual policy and decision record; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of concern, actual policy and decision record.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend the most useful next step in investigating a book-access decision while addressing a competing route. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle concern, actual policy and decision record.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about concern, actual policy and decision record, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to concern, actual policy and decision record.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do a policy notice’s definitions, passive or active constructions and appeals to authority frame book access? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Compare an official policy with its decision record, identify a gap and specify what evidence would change the proposed next step. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles concern, actual policy and decision record.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about recommendation and material brand connection; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of recommendation and material brand connection.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend a specific disclosure redesign against a competing design, weighing clarity and audience access. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle recommendation and material brand connection.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about recommendation and material brand connection, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to recommendation and material brand connection.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do disclosure placement, label choice and visual emphasis shape a reader’s perception of the sponsor relationship? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Test two disclosures in different screen layouts and explain what the test can establish about visibility and what it cannot establish about compliance. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles recommendation and material brand connection.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

E1: annotate verbs/group labels and write an evidence-based correction paragraph. E2: compare recap/log/account, produce analysis and rewrite for two audiences.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Explains how diction assigns responsibility; cites precise entries; distinguishes chronology from causation; audience changes do not change facts.

Analyze the recap’s causal reasoning and group framing; compose a public correction plus private repair proposal and commentary on rhetorical choices.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Defensible thesis; evidence-to-claim commentary; addresses counterargument; demonstrates audience awareness without evasive wording. Skills 1.B, 2.B, 3.A/C, 4.C, 5.A, 6.A, 7.A, 8.A.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

MYP: supported comparison, organized correction, original repair message and register reflection.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• MYP A–D: justified perspective, coherent references, purposeful new text, audience-fit language.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

DP Language and Literature: focused textual analysis of how diction, quotation and sequencing construct responsibility.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• DP criteria A–D practice: supported interpretation; evaluates authorial construction of blame; coherent focus; precise language.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Competing-cause audit, source-reliability memo, correction/repair protocol and criteria for evaluating whether the repair reached affected participants.

Turn in: Source notes, the assigned written product and a revision with reasons.

• Tests a rival cause; weighs each source’s limits; separates intent/impact/responsibility; defines checkable follow-up without claiming guaranteed trust.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about official jurisdiction-specific election information and details requiring current verification; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of official jurisdiction-specific election information and details requiring current verification.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Argue which information and source-checking steps a first-time local voter guide should prioritize without endorsing a candidate. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle official jurisdiction-specific election information and details requiring current verification.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about official jurisdiction-specific election information and details requiring current verification, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to official jurisdiction-specific election information and details requiring current verification.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do a local election information page’s hierarchy, instructions and labels position the first-time reader? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Compare two official election information pages for the same jurisdiction/date, reconcile differences and document unresolved questions. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles official jurisdiction-specific election information and details requiring current verification.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about arrival, entry, movement and participation across an entire route; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of arrival, entry, movement and participation across an entire route.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Recommend a route or design change using the full access chain, fair alternatives and limits of available information. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle arrival, entry, movement and participation across an entire route.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about arrival, entry, movement and participation across an entire route, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to arrival, entry, movement and participation across an entire route.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do a map or public-space access notice’s symbols, omissions and wording shape who appears able to participate? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Test two complete routes against explicit access requirements, document a failure point and identify evidence required before claiming usability. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles arrival, entry, movement and participation across an entire route.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about observed pay difference, relevant comparisons and unsupported legal conclusion; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of observed pay difference, relevant comparisons and unsupported legal conclusion.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend a fair next-step workplace inquiry while considering competing explanations for a pay difference. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle observed pay difference, relevant comparisons and unsupported legal conclusion.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about observed pay difference, relevant comparisons and unsupported legal conclusion, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to observed pay difference, relevant comparisons and unsupported legal conclusion.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do a pay policy or workplace message’s comparisons, terms and omissions frame fairness? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Construct two plausible explanations for an invented difference and specify the comparable records needed to distinguish them. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles observed pay difference, relevant comparisons and unsupported legal conclusion.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about actual holding and setting versus an analogy to a different dispute; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of actual holding and setting versus an analogy to a different dispute.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Argue how far an armband precedent helps analyze a different school-speech scenario, qualifying the analogy. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle actual holding and setting versus an analogy to a different dispute.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about actual holding and setting versus an analogy to a different dispute, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to actual holding and setting versus an analogy to a different dispute.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How does a judicial or school-policy extract’s structure, key distinctions and wording construct the boundaries of a claim? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Compare the source ruling and another relevant official decision, identify a material factual difference and state what remains unsettled. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles actual holding and setting versus an analogy to a different dispute.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about waste prevention versus management after disposal; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of waste prevention versus management after disposal.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend a waste-reduction proposal using prevention and management options, resource constraints and a fair counterproposal. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle waste prevention versus management after disposal.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about waste prevention versus management after disposal, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to waste prevention versus management after disposal.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do an event proposal’s labels, sequencing and selected figures frame what counts as environmental improvement? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Estimate effects using declared assumptions, test a changed attendance or purchasing assumption and design a feasible measurement plan. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles waste prevention versus management after disposal.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend a proposed production route while responding to the claim that attribution settles the rights question. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do a platform or rights explainer’s wording, examples and qualifications construct the user’s sense of permission? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Compare two uses of the same source work, identify which facts alter the reasoning and investigate a permission-based alternative. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about title of an offer and actual work/learning arrangement; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of title of an offer and actual work/learning arrangement.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend which missing facts should be investigated before labeling an internship arrangement, addressing the employer’s stated rationale. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle title of an offer and actual work/learning arrangement.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about title of an offer and actual work/learning arrangement, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to title of an offer and actual work/learning arrangement.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do an internship offer’s vocabulary, promises and sentence structure frame work as learning or opportunity? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Compare two invented offers using the same criteria, test rival classifications and explain why a title or one fact is insufficient. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles title of an offer and actual work/learning arrangement.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about listing language, policy concern and a supported legal claim; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of listing language, policy concern and a supported legal claim.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Recommend a specific inquiry or response to a rental restriction while considering an alternative explanation and missing facts. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle listing language, policy concern and a supported legal claim.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about listing language, policy concern and a supported legal claim, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to listing language, policy concern and a supported legal claim.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How does a rental listing or policy notice’s phrasing, omissions and appeals to authority frame who belongs? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Compare the restriction with the relevant official rule, identify scope/exceptions needing verification and specify what would alter the response. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles listing language, policy concern and a supported legal claim.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about allocation criteria, two approaches and who may be disadvantaged; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of allocation criteria, two approaches and who may be disadvantaged.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend an allocation approach for ten places among thirty students, giving the strongest counterargument fair treatment. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle allocation criteria, two approaches and who may be disadvantaged.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about allocation criteria, two approaches and who may be disadvantaged, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to allocation criteria, two approaches and who may be disadvantaged.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How does an allocation notice’s language and structure make one concept of fairness appear natural or inevitable? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Run a changed-assumption test on both allocation approaches and defend how competing fairness criteria should be weighted. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles allocation criteria, two approaches and who may be disadvantaged.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about totals, per-student figures and the limits of a fairness inference; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of totals, per-student figures and the limits of a fairness inference.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend what a budget comparison does and does not justify recommending, using fair alternatives and missing context. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle totals, per-student figures and the limits of a fairness inference.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about totals, per-student figures and the limits of a fairness inference, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to totals, per-student figures and the limits of a fairness inference.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do a budget graphic’s scale, labels, ordering and accompanying language frame an apparent fairness claim? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Recalculate using a changed enrollment or cost assumption, compare conclusions and identify the data needed to judge effects. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles totals, per-student figures and the limits of a fairness inference.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about specific agenda item, supported concern and an answerable request; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of specific agenda item, supported concern and an answerable request.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend one specific amendment or request by synthesizing the proposal, comparative evidence and a competing position. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle specific agenda item, supported concern and an answerable request.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about specific agenda item, supported concern and an answerable request, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to specific agenda item, supported concern and an answerable request.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How does a public proposal’s framing, selected figures and formal register guide what the reader sees as open for decision? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Compare two options under explicit decision criteria, test one constraint and define follow-up evidence that would justify revising the comment. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles specific agenda item, supported concern and an answerable request.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about appearance, verified provenance/context and unresolved origin; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

• Specific details support the explanation of appearance, verified provenance/context and unresolved origin.
• Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
• The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
• English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.

Defend the most warranted public description or next verification step for an uncertain-origin image, responding to an overconfident alternative. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

• A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
• Evidence and commentary accurately handle appearance, verified provenance/context and unresolved origin.
• The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
• Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Compare two case texts about appearance, verified provenance/context and unresolved origin, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

• A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to appearance, verified provenance/context and unresolved origin.
• B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
• C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
• D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

How do image selection, caption language and source labels construct an impression of authenticity? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

• A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
• B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
• C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
• D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Trace two independent contextual records, test a rival origin explanation and explain the limits of missing or conflicting provenance. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

• Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
• The analysis accurately handles appearance, verified provenance/context and unresolved origin.
• A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
• The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.