This packet is everything a parent or guide needs to assess Unit 08 at home — learning targets, the answers that count as correct, the mastery rubric, calibration examples, and a clipboard score sheet. No multiple-choice test: the student shows mastery by building a policy case study grounded in environmental data and defending it in debate.
By the end of the Sustainability & Environmental Policy unit, a student should be able to:
Six criteria, each judged Not yet / Approaching / Mastered (Page 3).
Build a data-grounded recommendation and defend it in debate.
The student defends a recommendation against counterarguments (Page 4).
Evidence, recommendation, and counterarguments kept distinct.
You are making a decision, not adding up points. For each criterion, decide whether the work is Not yet, Approaching, or Mastered — the column language tells you which. A criterion counts as mastered only when the student can both ground the case in data and defend the recommendation against challenge. A student carries three tokens per term; one token buys a re-do of one criterion on another day, so a single bad afternoon never sinks the unit.
Accept any answer in the synonyms column — they are pre-approved as equivalent. The third column flags the confusions that look close but are not yet, so you can coach precisely.
| Canonical answer | Accepted synonyms | Common confusion / discriminator |
|---|---|---|
| Economics of the environment | ||
| Sustainability | living within limits | Meeting needs without exhausting the resource base |
| Tragedy of the commons | commons overuse | Unowned shared resources get overused by everyone |
| Cost-benefit analysis | weighing costs vs benefits | A decision tool; only honest if it includes externalities |
| Externality | spillover cost | A cost that falls outside the price tag — must be internalized |
| Laws & agreements | ||
| Clean Air Act & Clean Water Act | major U.S. pollution laws | Each targets a named pollution problem |
| Endangered Species Act (ESA) | species-protection law | Protects at-risk species and habitat; distinct from NEPA |
| EPA | Environmental Protection Agency | Enforces U.S. environmental law — an agency, not a treaty |
| Montreal Protocol vs Paris Agreement | ozone treaty vs climate accord | Montreal worked (cheap fix); Paris is harder (carbon isn’t) |
| Criterion | Not yet | Approaching | Mastered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainability & the commons | Cannot define sustainability or why shared resources fail. | Names the tragedy of the commons but cannot apply it. | Defines sustainability and uses the tragedy of the commons to explain why unowned shared resources get overused. |
| Cost-benefit analysis & externalities | Ignores costs that don’t show up on a price tag. | Names externalities but cannot fold them into a decision. | Runs a cost-benefit analysis that internalizes externalities and defends the trade-off it implies. |
| Major U.S. environmental laws | Cannot name a major environmental law. | Names the Clean Air or Clean Water Act but not what it does. | Matches the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and NEPA to the problems each was written to solve. |
| International agreements & the EPA | Confuses domestic agencies with international treaties. | Names the EPA or an agreement but not its scope. | Explains the EPA’s enforcement role and contrasts the Montreal Protocol’s success with the Paris Agreement’s challenge. |
| Field technique (data-grounded policy case study) | Argues policy from opinion with no evidence. | Cites data but cannot connect it to a policy choice. | Builds a policy case study grounded in environmental data and defends the recommendation against counterarguments. |
| Integration (cross-domain) | Treats the science as isolated facts; makes no cross-domain connection. | Names a link to history, reading, or writing but cannot defend why it matters. | Connects the unit to its anchor across History · Reading · Writing (plus chosen electives) and defends why the connection matters. |
The split between Approaching and Mastered is the data carries the argument: an opinion isn’t mastery until the evidence backs it and survives challenge. Ask “what data supports this, and what’s the strongest objection?”
Read these before you grade. They show what Mastered and Not yet actually sound like, plus the edge cases where you should coach rather than decide on the spot.
Student: ______________________________________ Date: _______________ Guide: _________________________
| # | Criterion | Decision | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sustainability & the commons | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 2 | Cost-benefit analysis & externalities | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 3 | Major U.S. environmental laws | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 4 | International agreements & the EPA | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 5 | Field technique (data-grounded policy case study) | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 6 | Integration (cross-domain) | NY / Appr / Mast |
☐ No ☐ Yes — for criterion: __________ Tokens remaining: ☐ 3 ☐ 2 ☐ 1 ☐ 0
NY = Not yet · Appr = Approaching · Mast = Mastered · Unsure between two levels? Circle the lower one and note what a re-do would need.