High schools that offer both honors English and dual enrollment sections often assign the same novels to both, and Till We Have Faces is a popular choice for each. The essays that come back can look very different, and so can the expectations behind them. Teachers need a clear way to explain why an essay earns an A in one section and a B in the other, or to avoid that discrepancy entirely.

The core problem is that dual enrollment courses usually follow the standards of a partner college, while honors courses follow the high school's own curriculum. A college instructor may expect a stronger thesis, more sophisticated use of evidence, and tighter prose than the high school rubric requires. When both groups write on the same book, students and parents will naturally compare the grades they receive.

The first step is to identify exactly where the standards differ. Place the two rubrics side by side and look at each row, noting where one asks for more than the other. Often the difference is smaller than it seems, concentrated in two or three areas such as the quality of the thesis or the independence of the analysis. That comparison alone often settles half of the arguments before they start.

Designing One Rubric With Two Performance Targets

A practical solution is a single rubric with the same rows and descriptors for both sections, but with different expectations for which level counts as an A. In the honors section, a score of four on a six-point row might mean the student is meeting the standard, while the dual enrollment section might require a five. This keeps the language consistent and makes the difference in rigor explicit and defensible.

• Use the same rows and descriptors in both sections
• Set different cut scores for each grade based on course level
• Share the rubric with students on the first day of the unit
• Keep a bank of annotated sample papers for each section
• Review a small sample of papers across sections each term

Calibrating Across Teachers and Sections

Differences between sections are often the result of differences between teachers rather than differences in courses. One teacher may be generous with evidence and strict about thesis statements, while another reverses the emphasis. A calibration meeting where both teachers score the same five anonymous essays, regardless of section, reveals these habits and allows adjustment. Naming those habits out loud is usually enough to correct them without any formal intervention.

Where a college partner is involved, inviting the college instructor to join part of the session helps considerably. Their perspective on what first-year students are expected to do keeps the dual enrollment standards genuinely at the college level. It also builds trust between the two institutions, which matters if the school wants the partnership to continue. Even one shared scoring session per year is enough to keep the two sets of expectations from drifting apart.

Explaining Grades to Students and Parents

Parents of honors students sometimes feel that a dual enrollment peer is being graded more easily, and vice versa. A transparent rubric, shared in advance, is the best response, since it lets teachers point to specific rows and explain what the score reflects. Providing a short written rationale with each grade for a high-stakes essay can also head off disputes.

It is also important to explain that different courses are designed to challenge students in different ways. A student who earns a lower grade in a dual enrollment section may be producing work that would earn an A in the honors class. Framing the difference as one of expectations, not ability, helps keep the conversation constructive. Parents tend to respond well when they can see the rubric and a sample paper from each level.

Using Technology to Support Fair Comparison

AI grading tools can apply the same rubric to every paper in both sections, giving teachers a consistent baseline against which to compare their own scores. If a teacher's scores are consistently higher or lower than the tool's in one section, that is a signal worth investigating. The tool does not decide who is right, but it makes the pattern visible.

Teachers keep control of the final grades, and the data simply informs the conversation. Over a few units, it often reveals small, systematic differences that can be corrected through calibration. The result is a department that can say with confidence that students in both sections are held to standards that are clear, consistent, and appropriate to the course. Documenting those adjustments also gives the department a record to show the college partner during program reviews.