Many English teachers teach the same book to honors and college-prep sections, and the challenge is meeting each group at the right level. Into Thin Air works for both because it is accessible in plot but rich in analytical possibility. The difference lies in how much complexity students are asked to handle in their writing.

Differentiation should not mean lowering expectations for one group. Instead, it involves adjusting the level of scaffolding, the sophistication of the prompt, and the independence expected. Both groups should be asked to make arguments supported by evidence, but the supports and the complexity of the required thinking may differ.

A practical approach is to use a common core of rubric criteria across both sections and adjust the descriptors or the additional criteria. This keeps standards recognizable while allowing for appropriate challenge. It also simplifies grading, since teachers work from a shared framework.

Adjusting Prompts by Level

For college-prep sections, a prompt might ask students to explain how a specific decision contributed to the disaster, using three pieces of evidence. For honors, the same topic could be expanded to require comparison with a second source or evaluation of competing interpretations. The underlying skill is the same, but the cognitive demand increases.

• College-prep: analyze one decision with structured evidence and explanation.
• Honors: evaluate competing explanations using multiple sources.
• College-prep: use provided sentence frames and organizers as needed.
• Honors: develop an original thesis with minimal scaffolding.
• Both: cite specific textual evidence and explain its significance.

Feedback That Matches Student Readiness

Feedback should also reflect where each group is in their development. College-prep students might benefit from explicit modeling of how to explain a quotation, while honors students may need to be pushed toward nuance and counterargument. Tailoring comments in this way makes them more useful without changing the underlying criteria.

Be careful not to assume that honors students need less feedback. Advanced writers often plateau when comments become superficial. Pushing them toward more sophisticated moves, such as synthesizing perspectives or questioning assumptions, drives continued growth.

Maintaining Fairness and Transparency

Students and families sometimes worry about fairness when sections have different assignments. Explain that the sections are aligned to the same standards and that differences reflect the level of support and complexity. Sharing rubrics openly demonstrates that expectations are consistent and thoughtfully designed.

Grading data can help verify this alignment. If both sections receive similar score distributions on the shared criteria, the differentiation is likely appropriate. Large disparities may indicate that a prompt is too easy or too difficult for a group.

Managing Two Sets of Expectations Efficiently

Managing multiple versions of prompts and rubrics can multiply planning and grading time. Reusing a common rubric skeleton and modifying specific rows keeps the workload reasonable. Comment banks organized by skill also help, since many comments apply across levels.

AI grading tools that allow custom rubrics for each section can apply the appropriate criteria automatically and generate feedback tailored to each level. Teachers review the output and adjust as needed. This makes differentiated assessment realistic even for teachers with a heavy load.