English departments increasingly use common assessments to gather comparable data about student writing across classrooms. Persepolis works well for this purpose because it is taught widely, accessible to a range of readers, and rich enough to support serious analysis. A shared essay prompt allows teachers to see how students in different sections perform on the same task. The value of that data, however, depends entirely on whether scoring is consistent.

Departments often begin by agreeing on what skills the assessment should measure. It might focus on the ability to develop a claim about a theme and support it with textual evidence, or on integrating visual analysis. Naming two or three target skills prevents the assessment from trying to measure everything and measuring nothing. It also makes the resulting data easier to interpret.

Next comes the prompt, which should be open enough to allow different interpretations but specific enough to be scored consistently. A prompt such as "How does Satrapi use a child's perspective to comment on political change" invites varied but comparable essays. Avoid prompts that reward memorization or that depend heavily on what individual teachers emphasized in class. Fairness requires that every student could succeed with the same preparation.

Creating a Shared Rubric and Anchor Papers

A shared rubric is the backbone of a common assessment, but it works only when teachers interpret it the same way. Anchor papers, which are sample essays scored and annotated by the group, provide concrete examples of each performance level. Teachers can refer to them when a paper falls between two scores. Building this set takes effort at first but pays off every year afterward.

• Select a small set of student essays representing a range of quality levels
• Have every teacher score them independently before meeting
• Compare scores and discuss any differences until the group reaches consensus
• Record the reasoning for each score in short annotations attached to the anchor
• Store the anchors where new and returning teachers can find them easily

Moderating Scores Across Classrooms

Moderation is the process of checking that scores are consistent across graders. A simple approach is to have each teacher exchange a handful of essays with a colleague and score them blind, then compare results. Large gaps signal a need to revisit the rubric language or hold another norming discussion. Regular moderation keeps the assessment credible over time.

Departments with limited time may look to technology to support this work. An AI grading tool that applies the shared rubric to every essay can provide a consistency benchmark against which teacher scores can be compared. Where the tool and a teacher disagree sharply, the essay merits a second read. This does not replace collaborative moderation, but it can highlight where attention is most needed.

Using the Data to Improve Instruction

Once scores are collected, the department can look at patterns across sections and criteria. Perhaps thesis scores are strong everywhere but analysis lags, suggesting a shared instructional need. Perhaps one section significantly outperforms the others on evidence, which invites a conversation about what that teacher is doing. These discussions are far more productive when they focus on practices rather than on individual performance.

It is important to share the results with students and families in ways that are helpful and not punitive. Students benefit from seeing their strengths and areas for growth against clear criteria. Teachers benefit from the reassurance that their students are being held to a shared standard. A well-designed Persepolis assessment can become a reliable anchor in the department's assessment calendar.

Keeping the Process Sustainable

Common assessments can feel like a burden if they add work without clear benefit. To keep them sustainable, limit them to a few per year, reuse well-designed prompts and rubrics, and protect time for collaborative scoring during department meetings. Making the process routine reduces the sense that it is an extra demand. Teachers are more likely to engage when they see the results changing their teaching.

Finally, review the assessment annually and revise it based on what you learn. Prompts may need clarification, rubrics may need adjustments, and anchor papers may need updating. Treating the assessment as a living tool keeps it useful as students and curricula change. Over several years, a department that commits to this cycle builds a durable and trusted system for understanding student writing.