The Patron King: Marking a One-Sided Character Sketch
A half-yearly Persian paper for Class X has a 10-mark prose question: 'Discuss the character of the ruler in the prescribed lesson, supporting your answer with two incidents.' The marking note allots 4 marks for textual evidence, 3 for balanced judgement, and 3 for expression in Urdu or Persian. A candidate writes 130 words calling the ruler 'a perfect patron of learning.' She cites the public assembly where he rewards a poet with a robe and 500 dinars. She omits the next scene, in which the same ruler ignores his secretary's warning that the treasury is empty and then dismisses the secretary for repeating the warning. Her Persian is fluent, with only one gender agreement slip. Her final sentence is: 'Thus the king was just and wise.' The teacher has 90 seconds per script and must choose between 6/10 and 7/10. The head examiner has reminded the team not to reward length or fluency as a substitute for balance.
1. Which mark is more defensible under the stated scheme: 6/10 or 7/10? Justify by mapping the candidate's answer to the three marking criteria.
Read the worked answer
6/10 is the more defensible mark. Map the script to the rubric:
- Textual evidence: 2/4. She cites one incident accurately, but the question asks for two incidents and the second is available in the lesson.
- Balanced judgement: 1/3. 'Perfect patron' and 'just and wise' are absolute; the private dismissal is unmentioned, so the answer is one-sided.
- Expression: 3/3. Fluent Persian with one minor agreement slip does not lose a mark at this level.
Total: 6/10. A 7/10 would require at least a gesture toward the ruler's inconsistency or a second incident; fluency cannot substitute for the missing balance. The marker should write the breakdown on the script so the candidate sees why length did not help.
2. The candidate's final sentence is the main obstacle to a higher mark. Rewrite it as a balanced conclusion and name the one incident she must add.
Read the worked answer
Add the private scene and qualify the conclusion. The missing incident is the ruler's refusal to hear the secretary's warning about the empty treasury and his dismissal of the secretary. A balanced replacement sentence: 'The ruler rewarded poetry in public, but his refusal to hear fiscal advice and his dismissal of the secretary show that his patronage was impulsive rather than principled.' This keeps the candidate's admiration but makes it conditional. The revision should not simply add 'however'; it must name the second incident and explain what it reveals. In 90 seconds, the teacher can underline 'perfect' and 'just and wise' and write: 'One incident only; add the secretary scene and soften the conclusion.'
3. A second examiner says the omitted scene is 'not character evidence but a different theme.' How should the teacher decide?
Read the worked answer
Treat it as relevant character evidence unless the lesson clearly makes the scene about a different character. The test is whether the action is performed by the same ruler and whether it reveals a disposition: willingness to listen, fiscal judgement, treatment of advisers. A theme question and a character question can overlap; the rubric for character rewards evidence of consistency or inconsistency. The teacher should check the prescribed lesson's boundary: if the scene is part of the same lesson and the same character, it is admissible. The second examiner's objection is useful only if the scene belongs to another character or is a later interpolation. Decide by the rubric, not by whether the scene makes the answer less flattering.