Two Scripts, One Rubric: Length and Relevance in a Formal Letter
In an open-school Senior Secondary writing test, 48 candidates answer a 30-mark formal letter in 40 minutes. The task asks for 150–200 words and three content points: a broken streetlight, two accidents, and a request for repair. The rubric is content 10, organisation 8, expression 8, accuracy 4. Script A runs 236 words, covers all three points, uses five paragraphs, but includes two sentences about the weather and closes with 'Take care!' Script B runs 138 words, covers all three points in one block, has no paragraph breaks, and misspells 'municipal' twice. The board's instructions say the word limit is 'a guide, not a penalty.' A colleague argues Script A should lose content marks for the extra sentences and Script B should lose two marks for being under length. The head examiner asks you to apply the rubric consistently across both scripts.
1. Assign Script A a mark on the 30-mark rubric and justify each criterion score.
Read the worked answer
Script A: 26/30. Content 9/10: all three points are covered and the request is clear, but the two weather sentences are irrelevant and the informal 'Take care!' weakens the register expected in a formal letter to a municipal office. Organisation 7/8: five paragraphs give a clear sequence, but the weather sentences interrupt the problem–evidence–request chain. Expression 7/8: generally fluent and varied, with only minor awkwardness; the informal closing is a register slip rather than a breakdown. Accuracy 3/4: the script is largely accurate, with a few minor errors that do not obscure meaning.
Reasoning: The rubric rewards coverage and clarity first. Script A does the communicative job, so content should be high but not full marks. The irrelevance is already penalised in content and organisation; deducting again under expression would double-count the same weakness. The informal closing costs one content mark and is noted under expression, but it does not justify a two-band drop. 26/30 places the script in the upper band without treating it as flawless.
2. Assign Script B a mark and justify each criterion score.
Read the worked answer
Script B: 20/30. Content 8/10: all three points are present, but they are thin and the request is not developed; the reader can act on it, but only just. Organisation 4/8: the single block makes the letter hard to scan, and there is no salutation-to-sign-off structure visible in the description. Expression 5/8: sentences are simple and repetitive, with limited control of formal register. Accuracy 3/4: the two 'municipal' misspellings and other minor errors do not block meaning.
Reasoning: The main weakness is organisation, not content. Script B does not omit a content point, so a very low content score would misrepresent the script. The one-block format is a serious organisational flaw for a formal letter, so organisation sits in the lower band. Expression is limited but functional. The misspellings are minor and repeated, so accuracy stays at 3 rather than 2. 20/30 reflects a script that communicates but does not control the conventions of the format.
3. How should the word limit be handled for both scripts, given the board's 'guide, not a penalty' instruction?
Read the worked answer
Do not apply an automatic length penalty. The board says the limit is a guide, so Script A should not lose a separate mark merely for 236 words, and Script B should not lose two marks merely for 138 words. Length is evidence, not a criterion.
Script A: the extra 36 words are mostly the irrelevant weather sentences, which already cost marks under content and organisation. Deducting again for length would punish the same weakness twice.
Script B: the short length helps explain the thin development and the single-block organisation, but because all three content points are covered, it should not be treated as an automatic failure. The organisational and expression scores already reflect the compression.
Moderation note: record that length was considered as evidence under content, organisation, and expression, not as a standalone deduction. This keeps the two scripts comparable and follows the board's instruction. If a future script is grossly over length, the same principle applies: penalise repetition or irrelevance where it affects the criteria, not the word count itself.