The School Was the Test. It Failed.

Brief-Heavy Theory

The School Was the Test. It Failed.

In 2011, Mark Kislingbury said other court reporting theories were the reason students kept dropping out. He opened a school to prove his method was the cure. Fifteen years later, his school has the same dropout rate.

<hr>

In 2011, Mark Kislingbury made eight videos blaming other court reporting theories for the profession's high dropout rate.

He said his method was the cure.

He opened a school that year to prove it.

Fifteen years later, his school's completion rate is 7%.

The Texas Workforce Commission released the numbers in January 2026, under public records request R010658. The data was submitted to the state by MKA itself, as state-registered career schools are required to do annually.

620 students enrolled at the Mark Kislingbury Academy. 44 graduated.

The online cohort graduated at 5%. Some cohorts graduated at 2.6%.

In the 2011 videos, Kislingbury explained exactly what a rate that low meant.

<hr>

<h2>A note on what this article is</h2>

Mark Kislingbury has spoken publicly about court reporting theory for more than twenty years. He has made confident, strongly worded claims — in books, on video, at seminars, in trade journal responses, and in the marketing materials of the school he founded. Some of those claims are backed by data. Others are not. All of them have gone largely unexamined in print.

A teacher who speaks publicly, confidently, and at length about why other methods fail students has accepted the terms of public scrutiny. What follows is that scrutiny.

No private correspondence is quoted. No confidential information is used. No motives are attributed. Every claim examined is one Kislingbury made on camera, in print, or in state filings. Every counter-claim is grounded in the same evidence.

The job is accuracy. Not speed. That standard applies to the claims we make about our own work, too.

<hr>

<h2>Section 1 — What Kislingbury Said in 2011</h2>

In July 2011, Kislingbury recorded an eight-part video series. He was responding to a recent article in the Journal of Court Reporting titled "Mythbusters: Is briefing better?" (Kislingbury identifies the article as the July 2011 JCR issue.)

The JCR author argued that the push to write shorter had been oversold. Kislingbury disagreed.

For 85 minutes, he went through the article line by line and told his audience why other theories were failing students.

Two things about that response are worth noting before getting into what he said.

<h3>The length</h3>

Eighty-five minutes is a long time to spend on one article. Across eight separate videos, uploaded over two days in July 2011, Kislingbury went through the JCR piece sentence by sentence, responding to each claim as it came.

A shorter response would have shown his conclusions. A response this long shows the structure of the argument — the same rhetorical moves appearing five and six times across the eight parts, applied to different sentences of the article.

The pattern this article documents is only visible because the 2011 response was as sustained as it was.

<h3>Who the JCR article was about</h3>

The article did not name Kislingbury. It critiqued over-briefing as a general practice.

Kislingbury chose to treat it as a direct attack, because his books, his seminars, and his soon-to-open school were the most visible examples of the approach under critique. That reading of his own market position was accurate.

But it also means: when he now faces a critique that does name him — this article, and the book it supports — he cannot claim the precedent of 2011. In 2011, no one named him, and he responded for eighty-five minutes. What his response looks like in 2026, when the critique is direct and the data is in the record, is a separate question.

<h3>The 2011 claim</h3>

His claim was specific. Other theories made students write too many keys per word. Students taught those theories could not graduate. The proof, he said, was the dropout rate.

In Part 1 at 07:49, Kislingbury said:

"If you look the last two full decades — for a full twenty years approximately — these theories have been saying 'write everything out,' and only a few, a very small percentage of people have been able to graduate."

He named the theories he was blaming: Phoenix, StenEd, Robert Walsh Gonzalez. He said they caused the dropout rate. He said the cure was writing shorter.

In Part 7 at 01:04, he said:

"It is incontrovertible that to write fewer strokes makes you faster, all other things being equal. Absolutely it does."

He used the word incontrovertible more than once. He used guarantee. He said the math was irrefutable.

In the same video, he said you could figure out any reporter's top speed with two numbers: "Look at your theory, see how many strokes you write, then give you the maximum strokes per second — four and a half or five. And now we have your top speed done."

If the math was that certain, the failure was too. Students who kept writing long would keep failing. And the failure would not be their fault.

In Part 8 at 04:43, he made this explicit:

"If you're writing everything out, you're in big trouble. And you're going to have trouble graduating — even if you have no hesitation and you learn your theory well, you're still going to have trouble graduating, and say goodbye to top speeds."

That sentence is the hinge. Read what it says.

A student could master the theory and never hesitate, and would still fail to graduate, because the theory required too many keys. The theory caused the failure. How hard the student worked did not matter.

This wasn't a new argument for him. In Part 8 at 02:04, he placed his own teaching on a timeline: students had been learning these theories for 20 years, "and for the past 8 to 10 years I've been telling every student I can possibly tell that you have to shorten your writing or you're going to have trouble."

By 2011, he had been making the argument publicly for almost a decade.

<h3>Summary of the 2011 position</h3>

Other theories caused the dropout rate. His method was the fix. Students who used his method would graduate. Students who didn't would fail, and it wouldn't be their fault.

That year, he opened a school to deliver the fix. The Mark Kislingbury Academy opened in Houston in 2011. It has operated continuously since.

<hr>

<h3>The 2011 Position and the 2026 Result — Side by Side</h3>

What Kislingbury said in 2011 (Part 1, 07:49) 
"Only a few, a very small percentage of people have been able to graduate." 
Cause: other theories (Phoenix, StenEd) required students to write too many keys per word. 
Cure: write shorter.

What he predicted (Part 8, 04:43) 
"You're going to have trouble graduating — even if you have no hesitation and you learn your theory well." 
Translation: the theory causes the failure. Student effort does not change that.

What he did (same year) 
Opened the Mark Kislingbury Academy to deliver the cure.

What happened (Texas Workforce Commission, January 2026) 
620 enrolled. 44 graduated. 7% overall. Online cohort: 5%. Some cohorts: 2.6%.

<hr>

<h2>Section 2 — How the Argument Is Built</h2>

Kislingbury's 2011 argument has been repeated in videos, seminars, and books for fifteen years. Few people have stopped to examine how the argument is built.

The eight-part video series is useful for this. It is one continuous argument across 85 minutes, in his own unedited voice. The rhetorical moves below are not slips. They are the structure. Each one appears again and again.

Together they explain why the argument has felt airtight — and why it failed anyway.

A note before the catalog. Nothing that follows is a claim about what Kislingbury intended. Choices are choices. Whether a speaker knows he's making a particular choice is a separate question the video cannot answer. The video can show the pattern. That's what this section does.

<h3>The straw man</h3>

A straw man argument is when you describe the other side's position in its most extreme, ridiculous form — then attack the extreme version instead of the real one.

Kislingbury's 2011 argument depends on claiming that other theories teach students to "write everything out." That phrase appears across the eight parts. It is the foundation of the whole argument.

It is not true.

No court reporting theory teaches students to write everything out. Phoenix, StenEd, and the others he named all use briefs, phrases, and shortcuts. The real disagreement is between moderate briefing and aggressive briefing.

Kislingbury invented a position no one actually held, then attacked it.

He knows the move. In Part 4, responding to the JCR author, he defines a straw man argument himself:

"Some call that the straw man argument. A straw man argument means you build up a man made of straw and then you attack him instead of attacking the real argument."

He names it. Then he spends eight videos doing it.

<h3>Strong words with a quiet caveat</h3>

Kislingbury's strongest claims — incontrovertible, irrefutable, automatic, guarantee — are always followed by a small phrase: all other things being equal.

Part 7 at 01:04: "It is incontrovertible that to write fewer strokes makes you faster, all other things being equal."

Part 2 at 04:46, defending the move: the emergency brake is "not supposed to be on — nor are we supposed to hesitate when we write."

That small phrase — all other things being equal — is doing most of the work. It assumes away hesitation, fatigue, decision-making speed, how hard the material is, and how chaotic the room is. Those are the things that actually decide whether a reporter keeps up.

A model that only works when all of those things are zero is a model for a world where the hard parts have already been solved. The claim is not incontrovertible. It's conditional. And the conditions are the variables that matter.

The straw man has a twin. The straw man exaggerates the other side. The all other things being equal phrase assumes away the inconvenient details.

Both moves do the same thing: tell a clean story by hiding the messy parts.

<h3>Using his own website as evidence</h3>

When Kislingbury needs proof, he points to testimonials on his own website.

Part 8 at 05:13: "Go to MagnumSteno.com and look at my testimonials page, and that's what you'll see."

Testimonials are success stories, posted by successful students. Students who enrolled and dropped out are not on the page. Students who graduated but can't work at deposition speeds are not on the page.

A testimonials page tells you what the wins look like. It does not tell you how often anyone wins.

<h3>The challenge that isn't a test</h3>

Part 5 at 01:34: "I'll challenge anyone to pick out some sentence where I have a lot of briefs in it — or even any sentence — and let's see who can write it the quickest."

The challenge is a single sentence. It proves Magnum is faster on that one sentence. It says nothing about a seven-hour deposition with attorneys talking over each other, a medical expert on the stand, and objections flying.

The one-sentence demo isn't the test. It's the only situation in which his claim reliably holds.

<h3>Credentials count when they agree with him</h3>

In Part 6, the JCR article discusses Jennifer Bonfiglio, a captioner who holds the Registered Merit Reporter credential (RMR). Bonfiglio wrote 216 keys for 150 words of news copy — far longer than Kislingbury's method would allow.

The RMR is the same credential Kislingbury uses throughout the videos to prove his own method works. His top students' RMRs are held up as evidence.

At 06:43, his response to Bonfiglio's RMR:

"If Jennifer is one of those where she gets mostly verbatim and writes everything out, then she's got very fast fingers, very accurate, she is extraordinary, and she'd be the best in the world if she shortened her writing to my level."

The RMR proves his method works when his students hold it. When a reporter who disagrees with him holds the same credential, the credential suddenly isn't enough — she must also have fast fingers, talent, and extraordinariness.

You don't get to have it both ways. Either the credential is meaningful or it isn't.

<h3>The exception that gets absorbed</h3>

Bonfiglio's 216-key performance is a direct contradiction of his claim that writing long limits top speed. Kislingbury doesn't treat it as a contradiction.

In Part 6 at 05:11, he said:

"There are some people that write everything out and they are pretty good. I would attribute that to them having very fast fingers and being very talented."

She succeeds because of fast fingers and talent — two things Kislingbury introduces on the spot. She'd be even better if she wrote shorter, he adds. That's a hypothetical no one can test and no one can disprove.

The contradiction becomes a confirmation in real time.

A theory is only useful if it can be proven wrong. If every possible outcome confirms the theory, the theory isn't a theory. It's a belief system.

Kislingbury's framework has no outcome that could disprove it. Successes prove it works. Failures prove the student didn't try. Successes outside the system get explained away as talent or fast fingers.

There is no result — not even a 7% graduation rate at his own school — that the framework accepts as disproof.

<h3>The world record as argument</h3>

Kislingbury holds a Guinness-verified world record: 360 words per minute at 97.22% accuracy, set July 30, 2004. The record is real. It's checkable. It's an extraordinary individual achievement.

It also appears, in various forms, throughout his public arguments. In Part 7 at around 06:50, he cites it directly — his own record — as the basis for a calculation about how fast anyone's fingers can move: "When I made the world record that I made of 360 words a minute of testimony for one minute, I had to do nearly five strokes a second." He then uses that number as the ceiling in a formula that, he says, lets us "know exactly how fast all of you can write." A personal performance becomes the upper limit on everyone else's potential.

The record itself is one thing. The way it's deployed in the argument is another.

A world record proves one thing: that the record-holder, on one day, performed at that level.

It does not prove that his method caused the performance. It does not prove the method is teachable. It does not prove that other methods cannot reach comparable speeds. It does not prove that a student trained in his method will reach anything like his speeds. It does not prove stroke-intensive theories cap performance. It does not prove "write everything out" is anyone's actual position.

A top performer's method is evidence for what works for that performer. Top performers are outliers — that's what makes them top performers. Their success usually reflects the combination of their method and their talent, practice volume, cognitive aptitude, biomechanical fit, early exposure, and any number of other variables the method did not provide.

A world record does not make other statements true. It only makes itself true.

The 2011 claims about stroke-intensive theories, about graduation rates, about the ceiling on writing-out reporters — none of those claims are supported by the record. They stand or fall on evidence of their own. The record is not evidence of their own.

The record answers one question: whether Mark Kislingbury can write fast. Everyone agrees he can. The question the article is asking is different: whether his method produces graduates at scale. That question has an answer now, and the answer is 7%.

<h3>The false choice</h3>

Across the eight videos, Kislingbury splits the entire profession into two camps. Briefers and writer-outers. Short writers and stroke-intensive writers. Those who get it and those who don't.

The actual range of briefing practices — minimal, moderate, aggressive, extreme — collapses into two options.

Most reporters live in the middle. A reporter who briefs moderately and writes out occasionally cannot find themselves on this map. They have to pick a side or be invisible.

The argument makes picking Kislingbury's side the only defensible option — because the other side is the caricature he built.

<h3>The claim no one can check</h3>

Part 7 at 07:53: "I believe we can go into the 400 range if we write short enough and move our fingers as fast as possible."

No reporter has sustained 400 words per minute in any verified setting. The claim isn't a prediction that could be tested. It's a ceiling that exists because the math says it should — the same math that assumes away every variable the ceiling has never had to contend with.

Claims that can't be checked work rhetorically because they can't be disproved. Readers hear the ceiling and calibrate their expectations upward.

The ceiling becomes part of the evidence even though no one has reached it.

<h3>What all nine do together</h3>

Each of these rhetorical moves is a choice a speaker can make. The question is what happens when all nine are the structure of a single, sustained argument.

The answer is that the argument becomes almost impossible to challenge.

<ul>
<li>Object to "incontrovertible" and you get the caveat.</li>
<li>Raise a contradicting example and you get the talent explanation.</li>
<li>Point to a credentialed expert who disagrees and the credential stops counting.</li>
<li>Ask about real outcomes and you get pointed to testimonials.</li>
<li>Ask for a test and you get a one-sentence demo.</li>
</ul>

That is not how a theory works. That is how a sales pitch works.

A sales pitch works until the real numbers arrive.

When the 2026 defense blames students who didn't drill enough, it is not a new move. It is the same playbook applied to a different problem. The straw man version of the critic — a student who didn't commit — is easier to knock down than the real critic, which is the TWC data.

The framework couldn't be disproved in 2011. The framework still can't be disproved in 2026. That isn't a strength. It's the reason the framework hasn't noticed that its own school just falsified its central claim.

The 2011 argument felt incontrovertible because it was built to feel that way. The math was part of it. The rhetoric did the rest.

<hr>

<h2>Section 3 — What Backs the Claims</h2>

Every argument that runs for fifteen years and shapes a profession should, at some point, be asked a simple question.

Where is the data?

The 2011 video series, the books, the seminars, the school's marketing — all of it rests on a small number of major claims about court reporting theory and student outcomes. Here's what each of those claims is supported by, based on the public record.

<h3>Claim 1: Stroke-intensive theories cause low graduation rates.</h3>

No data. No comparative study across programs. No cohort analysis. No tracked outcomes. The claim is an assertion about a twenty-year pattern, with no citation and no dataset.

<h3>Claim 2: Shorter writing makes reporters faster.</h3>

Not data. Arithmetic. Fewer strokes at the same finger speed produces more words per minute — which is true by definition. The truth of the arithmetic only holds under "all other things being equal," which is the exact condition Section 2 shows does the argumentative work.

<h3>Claim 3: Top finger speed is four and a half to five strokes per second.</h3>

No source given. Kislingbury says he "did the math." His own calculation, not a measurement of any population of reporters.

<h3>Claim 4: His world record of 360 wpm at 97.22% accuracy.</h3>

This is one of the few verifiable claims in the public record. Guinness World Records confirms Kislingbury set the record on July 30, 2004. But this is data about one person, one performance. It tells you what Mark Kislingbury can do. It doesn't tell you what a student taught his method can do.

<h3>Claim 5: His top students reach 280–300 wpm realtime.</h3>

Anecdotal. Testimonial-based. Not systematically reported, not tracked across cohorts, not audited by any outside party.

<h3>Claim 6: Short writers won the first seven NCRA Realtime Contests.</h3>

Kislingbury made this claim in Part 5 at 03:38. Independent verification of the contest outcomes — specifically, that all seven were won by "short writers" as Kislingbury defines the term — could not be located in the public record. Even if the claim is accurate, it would establish correlation, not causation. The reporters Kislingbury names were also among the most experienced and talented in the country.

<h3>Claim 7: 400 wpm is achievable if you write short enough.</h3>

Explicitly un-evaluable. He says "I believe." No reporter has done it.

<h3>Claim 8: "Writing everything out" caps top speeds.</h3>

His central claim. Based on arithmetic reasoning plus the finger-speed ceiling he calculated himself. No external data.

<h3>What this means</h3>

The 2011 framework rests on three kinds of support.

<ul>
<li>Arithmetic reasoning from assumptions that hold only when variables like hesitation, fatigue, and decision load are zero.</li>
<li>Kislingbury's own performance records — a single reporter, treated as representative evidence for a method.</li>
<li>Testimonials from successful students — a self-selected subset, published on his own website.</li>
</ul>

There is no systematic study. No comparative cohort data. No peer review. No outcome tracking at scale.

For fifteen years, the profession had no outside way to check any of this.

The TWC data, released in January 2026, is the first systematic outcome measure ever applied to Kislingbury's school.

Before this release, there was no way for a student, an educator, or an administrator to check his claims against a dataset. They had to take his word for it. They had to take the testimonials on faith.

That's not an accident of history. That's how the argument survived unchallenged for fifteen years — by operating in a space where there was no data, and no one was asking for any.

The data has now arrived. What follows is what it shows.

<hr>

<h2>Section 4 — The Prediction Failed</h2>

In January 2026, the Texas Workforce Commission released completion data for state-registered court reporting programs. Texas requires registered career schools to report enrollment and completion data annually as a condition of operation.

The data below was reported by the Mark Kislingbury Academy itself and certified by the school as accurate.

The numbers for MKA:

<ul>
<li>620 students enrolled</li>
<li>44 graduated</li>
<li>Overall graduation rate: 7%</li>
<li>Online cohort: 5%</li>
<li>Some cohorts: 2.6%</li>
</ul>

These are not numbers a critic gathered. These are numbers the Mark Kislingbury Academy submitted to the state, certified as accurate, and filed as a condition of continued operation.

The article that follows applies Kislingbury's 2011 diagnostic standard to the numbers Kislingbury's institution reported.

Apply Kislingbury's own 2011 standard. In Part 1 at 07:49, he called "a very small percentage of people have been able to graduate" the sign of a failed theory.

Seven percent is a very small percentage. Five is smaller. Two point six is smaller still.

His method produced the exact failure rate he spent 85 minutes blaming on everyone else.

Two objections deserve direct answers.

<h3>First objection: MKA is not alone. Other Texas court reporting programs have similar graduation rates.</h3>

That's true. It's also not a defense.

In 2011, Kislingbury did not say low graduation rates were mysterious. He said stroke-intensive theories caused them, specifically. He said shorter writing was the cure. MKA was the test of that claim. His method was the treatment.

If his method was the cure, his graduation rate would be higher than the others. It isn't. Same rate. Same failure pattern.

The 2011 claim was not "all theories are equally bad." The 2011 claim was that one specific mechanism — writing too many keys — caused the dropout rate. The fact that his method produces the same rate doesn't show MKA quietly succeeded.

It shows the mechanism he identified wasn't the one driving the problem.

<h3>Second objection: Graduation rate doesn't reflect the quality of the students who do graduate.</h3>

In 2011, Kislingbury treated graduation rate as the main measure of a theory's success. He used it to argue other theories were failing. That's the measure he chose. That's the measure that now applies to his own school.

If the defense is that graduation rate is the wrong measure, the defense has to first explain why the 2011 argument used it as the right measure.

He predicted shorter writing would break the dropout pattern.

It didn't.

<hr>

<h2>Section 5 — The Retreat</h2>

When MKA's graduation numbers come up in professional conversation today, the explanation is different from the 2011 one.

Today, the problem is students.

<ul>
<li>Students didn't drill enough.</li>
<li>Students didn't fully internalize the briefs.</li>
<li>Students didn't commit.</li>
<li>Students who stuck with it succeeded.</li>
<li>Students who didn't are not proof the system failed — they're proof those particular students failed.</li>
</ul>

Put the 2011 position next to the 2026 defense and read them in order.

2011, Part 8 at 04:43: "You're going to have trouble graduating — even if you have no hesitation and you learn your theory well."

2026: students who don't graduate didn't have enough mastery, didn't eliminate hesitation, didn't drill enough.

Both statements can't be true.

In 2011, Kislingbury said the theory caused the failure. The 2026 defense — offered by the framework's defenders whenever the numbers come up — says the students cause the failure.

One of these is being said to protect the other.

A theory that changes its cause when the data arrives was never tested and confirmed. It was modified to survive the test.

<h3>Why the retreat takes this shape</h3>

There's a reason the retreat takes this shape. The 2011 argument's strongest claim — that writing length determines graduation, independent of how hard the student works — is the claim MKA's 7% most directly disproves.

The school is the test. To keep the framework intact, the claim has to move.

The move that does the least damage is the one that shifts blame from the system to the student. Student effort can't be measured from outside the school. It can't be disproved by anyone except the school itself. And it puts the burden of proof on the students who left, not the school they left.

This is the same playbook from Section 2.

The compliance defense is the straw man, aimed at students.

It exaggerates what student failure looks like, so the framework can survive by knocking the exaggeration down. Students with different cognitive capacities, different financial pressures, different abilities to sustain sixteen months of intense motor learning — all of them collapse into one category: students who didn't do the work.

The framework that once exaggerated other theories into "write everything out" now exaggerates its own dropouts into "didn't commit." The target changed. The move is the same.

What the framework cannot do, and has not done, is take the TWC data seriously as a test. Treating the 2011 prediction as a hypothesis and the 2026 outcome as a result would require admitting that writing length is one variable in a larger system — a system that includes decision load, distraction, fatigue, and material difficulty — and that a theory built on writing length alone cannot predict who graduates at scale.

That admission is what The Science of Steno makes.

The 2026 defense does not make it.

The 2026 defense says: the students should have drilled more.

The data says: the students drilled as much as they could, and 93% of them still failed.

<hr>

<h2>Section 6 — What Automaticity Cannot Explain</h2>

One more piece of evidence matters, because it speaks directly to the core of the 2026 defense.

The 2026 defense depends on a concept called automaticity. The idea is that if you drill a brief enough times, your fingers will produce it automatically. You don't have to think. The mental cost is paid during training, not during performance.

In theory, once automaticity kicks in, the mental load drops to almost nothing.

If that's true, the framework survives. The 7% graduation rate becomes a question of who drilled enough to reach automaticity — not a question of whether the system requires too much of students in the first place.

<h3>What the defense has to assume</h3>

For the automaticity defense to hold up MKA's 7%, one of two things has to be true.

Possibility one: Of 620 enrolled students, only 44 drilled enough to reach automaticity. The other 576 did not. They chose not to, or could not, despite enrolling in a program whose entire design is built around daily drilling. The cost in time and tuition was not enough to motivate them. The school's structure did not correct for their inability to drill. 93% of paying students failed to do the one thing the program required of them.

Possibility two: Many of the 576 did drill consistently, and automaticity alone was not enough to produce graduation at working speeds. Cognitive load did not reduce to zero. Other variables — decision load, context effects, fatigue, material difficulty — still decided the outcome.

Possibility one says the students failed to execute a method that works. Possibility two says the method was not sufficient on its own to produce the outcome it claimed.

<h3>Why possibility one doesn't hold</h3>

A method marketed as teachable at scale cannot survive a 93% non-compliance rate. At that level, the method is not producing automaticity in students — it is identifying the small fraction of students who can produce automaticity for themselves.

That is a selection effect, not a pedagogy. The students who succeed at MKA are the ones who would likely have succeeded at any program. Their success is not evidence that the method works. It is evidence that they do.

A pedagogy has to produce results in the median student, or it is not a pedagogy. It is a filter. A filter that passes 7% is not a teaching system — it is a credential gate that happens to sort students by traits the credential did not teach them.

<h3>What possibility two means</h3>

If automaticity does not eliminate cognitive load — if decision load, context effects, and fatigue persist even at peak rehearsal — then the 2026 defense does not protect the framework. The claim that "students should have drilled more" collapses into "students should have been born with different cognitive capacities."

That is the version the TWC data supports. Not because the students were lazy. Because the method demanded something the median student cannot produce under sustained real-world conditions.

This is the point at which the structural argument closes.

<ul>
<li>In 2011, Kislingbury said other theories caused the dropout rate.</li>
<li>In 2011, he said shorter writing was the cure.</li>
<li>In 2011, he opened the school.</li>
<li>In 2026, the school produced 7% — the same rate he spent 85 minutes blaming on others.</li>
</ul>

The 2026 defense moves the blame to students. But the defense only works if 93% of enrolled students failed to drill, which makes the method untaught rather than tested — or if automaticity does not eliminate load, which means the defense does not protect the framework.

Either way, the framework does not survive the test its own school provided.

The school was the test. The test returned a result.

The result is in the public record — in Kislingbury's own 2011 words, and in his own school's 2026 data.

<hr>

<h2>Closing</h2>

Kislingbury deserves one piece of credit for his 2011 argument. He said the court reporting dropout rate was a problem with the system, not a problem with the students.

On that, he was right.

He was wrong about the cause. His school proves he was wrong about the cause, because his school ran his cure and produced the same dropout rate.

The tools now exist to measure what his theory couldn't see. Decision-making load. Distraction. Prediction failure. Fatigue.

The students who didn't graduate are not the explanation for the dropout rate. They are the result the dropout rate needs to explain.

The job is accuracy. Not speed.

<hr>

Tom Fernicola is a 37-year complex litigation court reporter and the creator of BREVITY. He is the author of The Science of Steno: Why Court Reporting Is So Hard — and What the Math Proves (Fernicola Publishing, 2026).

Back to blog

Classic V3

Urban V1

Windbreaker V1

Classic V4

Windbreaker V2