Two Scripts, One Rubric, One Angry Colleague
You are marking 42 Class 10 answer scripts from a unit test. The letter-to-the-editor item is worth 8 marks with the agreed split - format 2, content 3, expression 3 - and a word limit of 120–150 words. Script A has perfect format and three relevant suggestions, reads fluently, runs to 215 words, and contains 'I am having a headache about this problem' and 'kindly do the needful at the earliest'. Script B runs to 96 words, has no sender's address, makes one strong suggestion, and uses precise vocabulary with no grammatical error. A colleague marks Script A 8/8 ('it reads well') and Script B 3/8 ('too short, incomplete format'), and wants a one-mark handwriting deduction on four scripts. In class, a student asks why 'He is senior than me' is wrong when 'everyone says it', and two students challenge a comprehension item whose answer they say is also (c).
1. Mark Scripts A and B yourself using the rubric, showing the arithmetic, and respond to your colleague's marking and the handwriting proposal.
Read the worked answer
Script A: format 2 (correct); content 3 − 1 = 2 (three relevant points, but 215 words against a 120–150 limit - the same length penalty for every script, announced before marking); expression 3 − 1 = 2 (two clear errors: 'I am having a headache about' and 'do the needful'). Total 6/8.
Script B: format 1 (no sender's address); content 2 (one strong but undeveloped suggestion); expression 3 (precise and error-free). Total 6/8.
The two scripts are level, for opposite reasons - which is exactly what a rubric is for.
To the colleague: the problem is the order of marking, not generosity. If A is read first and 'sounds good', a fluency halo inflates expression and hides the length and idiom problems; B's short length then reads as failure against that impression. Mark all 42 scripts one criterion at a time - all formats, then all content, then all expression - and re-mark a random 10 to check agreement between the two of you.
Handwriting: no deduction, because it is not in the rubric. If legibility genuinely affects communication, that must be a whole-paper policy applied to everyone, decided before marking starts, not a one-mark penalty invented mid-batch.
2. A student asks why 'He is senior than me' is wrong when everyone says it. Respond so that the rule is taught and the student's observation is respected, and outline a five-minute activity.
Read the worked answer
- Agree with the observation. 'Senior than' is common in speech, so the student is not imagining it. Frequency is not the test; what the written exam and formal writing require is.
- Teach the pattern, not a list. Senior, junior, superior, inferior, prior and preferable take to. These are Latin comparatives that already contain the comparison ('senior' = older), so 'than' would compare twice. Ordinary comparatives - taller, better, cheaper - take than.
- Contrast pair on the board: 'He is senior to me' versus 'He is taller than I am'.
- Five-minute sort: eight sentences into 'to' or 'than' columns, each student justifying one. Include one trap ('preferable to') and one ordinary comparative.
- Register note, not a scolding: 'senior than' may be heard locally, but it will be marked wrong in the written paper. Never tell students their home speech is wrong; say where each form belongs.
- Exit slip: complete three sentences - one with 'senior to', one with 'than', one with 'preferable to'.
3. Two students claim a comprehension item has a second defensible answer, (c). How do you resolve it, and what does it change about your test-setting?
Read the worked answer
Do not settle it by authority.
- Re-read the passage beside the item and write down the exact line that supports (b) and the exact line that supports (c). If both have textual warrant, the item is flawed, not the students.
- Test the key's reasoning. If (c) needs an inference the passage does not license, it is a weak distractor. If it is a legitimate inference, the item has two correct answers.
- Act on all 42 scripts, not just these two: either double-key (b) and (c), or drop the item and mark out of the reduced total. Announce which, and apply it uniformly.
- Tell the class what happened and why, using it to teach the difference between 'supported by the text' and 'true in real life' - the commonest cause of a defensible second answer.
- Next time: one clearly supported answer, distractors refutable from a named line, and an item-analysis sheet. If more than about 30% of the class picks a distractor that is defensible, the item goes for review before anyone is labelled careless.