iRubric: The Cost of Banking rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

The Cost of Banking

Participants will calculate the cost of check cashing fees and high interest loans to understand how this form of banking extracts wealth from poverty communities.

Rubric Code: S3589C

By SandySheard

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Math

Type: Assignment

Grade Levels: (none)

The Cost of Banking
	Poor 1 pts	Fair 2 pts	Good 3 pts	Excellent 4 pts
Math Computation	Poor Participant is not able to understand the mathematics, does not attempt to complete most problems and/or answers are too incorrect to meet the objective.	Fair The mathematics is generally understood although there may be some mistakes Computational errors or mathematical misteps are recognized and participant can estimate the amount well enough to understand the cost of banking.	Good Participant understands the math, does it correctly for the problems attempted, but did not learn all of the math associated with each problem.	Excellent Math computations are completed, understood, and correct. Participants can extend and apply the math problems to a larger scale.
Analysis of Banking	Poor Participant does not see any difference between check cashing places and traditional banks.	Fair Participant understands the fees but sees no problem because it is only a few dollars at a time (no ability to scale up the problem to see that small fees add up).	Good Participant sees that traditional banking is cheaper than check cashing and roll over loans. The concept that fees consume the money that could otherwise be invested is understood.	Excellent Participants see that traditional banking is cheaper than check cashing and roll over loans and also understands the wealth lost by paying these fees. The lost investment opportunity cost is understood.
Persuasive Writing	Poor Participant is not able to make an argument as to why traditional banking is cheaper than going to check cashing places.	Fair Participant sees that traditional banking is better but cannot support their argument with facts, and/or has a weak or incorrect mathematical argument.	Good Participant sees that traditional banking is better and supports their argument with facts and numbers from problems done in the workshop.	Excellent Participant sees that traditional banking is cheaper and supports their argument with facts and numbers. Participant can extend the problems done in the workshop to relate them to the larger community.