The major concern I’ve had throughout this debate is that the teachers and school authorities would circle the wagons in mutual support, rather than simply address the question of whether their own knowldege base was adequate to the criticism leading to the “Inadequate” judgement.

I learned a long time ago that my authority as a teacher grows when I acknowledge my own limits and my own learning process. Teachers should always see themselves as experienced learners, people who can help others learn, but who must always be open to knew readings, new interpretations, new contexts for existing knowledge. Since this was an honors class, that stance is especially appropriate.

I don’t make these comments idly. In my career, I have read hundreds of thousands of student papers, many composed under exam conditions. I helped found our college’s Honors program and have taught in it for 16 years now. I have read in seven different writing exam programs over a period of 25 years. I can’t imagine Steve’s paper being failed in any of those programs. However, the standard approach is to have TWO readers and if they disagree by more than a point a THIRD reader resolves the discrepancy.

A weakness of the Richland scoring program seems to be that ONE reader makes the judgment, and then others are called to support that judgement. In my view, this is a flawed process.

I truly hope the teachers and administrators of Richland High look at this controversy as a way for everyone to learn and not as a disciplinary process.

I hope someone will report the outcome for Steve at some point.