A Dangerous Shift in California – Why Changes to CSR Exam Requirements Could Gut the Stenographic Pipeline

For decades, California’s Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) exam has stood as the most rigorous licensing exam in the country. It’s a four-voice, 200 wpm realtime test, simulating the demands of real-world litigation. The pass rate is less than 2.5%, a reflection of the exam’s difficulty and the high standards required of stenographic professionals in California.

But now, that system is being undermined. Some schools—starting with Downey Adult School—are refusing to sponsor students for the CSR unless they pass a 225 wpm internal school test first, regardless of their readiness for the actual exam. This isn’t a new rule from the state—it’s a unilateral school policy. And it’s locking out qualified students who’ve already completed their academics and apprentice hours.

---

Real-World Fallout – The Pipeline Is Breaking

This policy shift isn’t theoretical—it’s playing out in courtrooms and classrooms right now.

Just last week, a student walked into my courtroom in Long Beach. She’s been working toward becoming a court reporter for five years—balancing school, apprenticeship hours, and raising a two-year-old child. She comes from an underprivileged background, has overcome every barrier placed in front of her, and has nearly completed everything required to sit for California’s CSR exam.

She’s a machine writer who has completed all of her academics, nearly finished her apprentice hours, and was aiming to take the California CSR exam this November. She proudly declared herself a “225 student”—meaning she’s writing at a high enough speed to attempt the state exam, which is still 200 wpm. But there was a problem: her school, Downey Adult School, won’t sponsor her unless she passes their internal 225 wpm test first.

She didn’t fail. She just didn’t pass their 225 test yet—a test that’s not required by the state. Now she’s in limbo, even though the state CSR test would be the real measure of her ability. I asked if another school could sponsor her. But when I contacted a reputable program, their owner told me they couldn’t help. Not because the student wasn’t ready, but because schools that step in to help a student who trained elsewhere risk getting blacklisted by their peer institutions.

Let that sink in: a determined young mother, five years into this journey, has completed her academic work, has nearly finished her apprentice hours, and reached the right speed—but is now barred from the profession because of internal politics and a regulatory bait-and-switch.

It’s a systemic chokehold. One that punishes students, not for a lack of skill or preparation, but for attending the “wrong” school or for coming up during a time of regulatory flux. Meanwhile, voice writers and digital recorders can slide into the same industry with virtually no apprenticeship, no formal classroom training, and zero transcript production experience.

The playing field isn’t just uneven—it’s actively being tilted against the students who chose the hardest path.

And let’s be clear – many of these students are working adults, parents, or from communities historically underrepresented in law and government. They are not failing. They are being shut out by shifting goalposts that were moved without their consent or understanding.

California’s schools were not consulted about this change. The shift to RPR standards was “slipped in,” as one school owner put it, without statewide buy-in. And now schools like Downey are enacting these internal policies as if they are state law—cutting off students who are otherwise ready to serve in the courts.

This isn’t about standards. It’s about control. And the people getting hurt most are the very ones who’ve put in the hardest, longest, most expensive work.

Replacing the CSR with the RPR is a Step Backward

Why the shift? The California Court Reporters Board (CRB) is quietly moving to align the CSR with the NCRA’s Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) format.

But let’s be clear: The RPR is significantly easier.

• Only 3 sections (Literary at 180, Jury Charge at 200, Q&A at 225)
• Only two voices—not four
• Modular testing—you can pass one leg at a time and retake the rest later

In contrast, California’s CSR is a two-part, high-stakes performance exam that truly reflects the complexity of live court reporting. Watering it down to match the RPR is not progress. It’s regression.

---

The NCRA Is Shrinking—Why Are We Following Their Lead?

The NCRA has spent years trying to get states to adopt the RPR as their licensing exam. After all that effort? Only 8 states have adopted it. That’s not momentum—that’s failure.

Meanwhile, the NCRA has rejected voice writers, clinging to outdated politics instead of embracing the broader ecosystem of record-making. It’s no longer leading the profession. Organizations like NVRA are stepping up to fill that gap, offering inclusive certification paths while defending core standards. And in Europe, Intersteno has already embraced multi-method record creation—steno, voice, and digital—and is leading globally.

Why is California, the largest court reporting market in the U.S., taking its cues from a shrinking national body that doesn’t even serve our best interests?

Where Is the NCRA?

That’s the question many professionals are asking.

The NCRA, headquartered in Virginia, is the nation’s leading certification body for stenographic reporters. While the RPR is their flagship national certification, the NCRA has largely remained hands-off when it comes to state-level licensure. But with California now altering its CSR to mirror the RPR format, it’s time for the NCRA to engage—because this change will have national consequences.

If California stenographers are increasingly judged by RPR standards, the NCRA’s own policies and partnerships will influence who gets to work in the largest legal market in the United States. California reporters work high-volume civil calendars, fast-paced jury trials, and complex depositions that require mastery of speed, accuracy, and real-world litigation protocol. We can’t afford to shut out well-trained, practice-ready students over arbitrary internal testing benchmarks—especially when digital reporting companies and AI startups are circling to replace us.

---

The Real Agenda – Who’s Controlling the CRB?

Look behind the curtain, and you’ll find two powerful plants sitting on the California Court Reporters Board, steering policy in a dangerous direction:

1. A political proxy: One member of the CRB is a former aide to Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, notorious for sponsoring anti-reporter legislation. She has no background in court reporting, no expertise in the field, and no business overseeing the future of this profession. Her presence on the board isn’t by accident—it’s strategic. She’s pushing Gonzalez’s anti-steno agenda from inside the system.
2. A tech entrepreneur with ties to Bill Gates: Another CRB member is the founder of a tech startup funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. That’s the same Gates Foundation that has poured billions into ASR (automated speech recognition) technology—technology that seeks to replace human court reporters entirely. With someone in that position of influence, it’s no surprise we’re seeing a push to weaken the CSR and open the door to tech-driven substitutions.

Let’s not kid ourselves: This is not about fairness. It’s about control. It’s about dismantling steno to make room for cheap automation. And the people making these decisions have financial and political interests that are diametrically opposed to the survival of the stenographic profession.

---

Steno Students Are Being Punished—While Voice Writers Get a Free Pass

While steno students are being blocked by arbitrary new requirements, voice writers are being allowed to take the CSR with no real-world experience, no formal coursework, and no transcript production skills. Some programs are entirely online and can be completed in less than a year. And yet, those candidates face fewer barriers than stenographic students who’ve put in thousands of hours learning a high-skill trade.

It’s insulting. It’s reckless. And it’s happening in the shadows.

---

What Needs to Happen Now

We need a hard stop and a full investigation into how these changes were allowed to slip through. At a minimum, the CRB must:

• Clarify publicly whether the 225 requirement is now a statewide rule
• Disclose all board member affiliations and conflicts of interest
• Halt any move to adopt the RPR as a substitute or model for the CSR
• Establish an appeals or waiver process for current students
• Include California’s schools and working reporters in decision-making

And above all, we need to protect the CSR—not dismantle it to serve corporate interests or political vendettas.

---

The CSR Is the Standard. Don’t Let Them Erase It.

California’s licensing system works because it’s tough. Because it demands excellence. Because it produces the best-trained, most reliable reporters in the country.

If we let political insiders and billionaire-backed tech investors rewrite the rules, we won’t just lose the CSR—we’ll lose the future of stenography in California. And where California goes, the rest of the country will follow.

This is a fight for the survival of our profession. And it starts with refusing to surrender the CSR. Not to schools, not to compromised board members, and not to national organizations that have lost their way.

---

How Many CSRs Are There—Really?

As of January 1, 2025, there were 4,587 active California‑licensed court reporters residing in the state ccra.memberclicks.net+7California Courts+7California Courts+7. That figure reflects licensees not in delinquent status and residing within California.

Between fiscal years 2009–10 and 2022–23, the total number of licensees dropped by over 25%, and courts now face a need to hire hundreds of additional full‑time court reporters just to meet legal minimums Los Angeles Superior Court+9California Courts+9California Courts+9.

---

Did the CRB Manipulate the Numbers?

There are credible reports that the CRB may have intentionally marked around 1,000 court reporters as “inactive” to artificially lower the count of active licensees. This tactic appears to have been deployed around the time the Judicial Council was evaluating ASR/ER (automated speech recognition / electronic recording) technologies for courtroom use.

By reducing the number of “active” CSRs in official reporting, the shortage appeared more acute—a lever used to justify broader reliance on ASR and electronic recording. This manipulation raises grave concerns about transparency and intent during a pivotal policy shift.

---

Why This Matters

• Shortage Narrative: With just 4,600 active CSRs reported—but many more likely marked inactive artificially—it’s difficult to assess the real roadway of stenographic capacity in California.
• Policy Manipulation: If the CRB trimmed its active figures to make ASR look more necessary, that’s not just biased reporting—it’s political manufacturing of a crisis.
• Impact on Students and Schools: This stunts the case for renewing and sustaining CSR training programs—and strengthens the push for easier pathways like RPR or voice writing.
• The Tech Agenda Gains Ground: As the shortage is made to look more severe, investment money and policy decision-makers shift toward automation solutions, undercutting the steno profession at its roots.

---

Context Drives Consequence

• In 2016, California had about 6,842 CSRs, and by 2021, 5,854—a drop of nearly 1,000 in five years California CourtsLos Angeles Superior Court.
• Between 2013–14 and 2021–22, the drop was around 19% in total licensed reporters, per Consumer Affairs and Judicial Council data Capitol Weekly.

So the larger picture: If you remove 1,000 names from the “active” roster, it becomes much easier to argue that California needs emergency fixes—like automated reporting—when in fact it may just need better training, retention, and education support.

More Quiet Sabotage as CRB Strips Schools from CSR Pass Lists

As if internal school politics and licensing changes weren’t enough, the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) has made yet another under-the-radar move that weakens the profession’s infrastructure. Without warning or consultation, the CRB removed the names of court reporting schools from official CSR pass lists, severing the public connection between a student’s success and the institution that trained them. Schools discovered the change after the fact—there was no transparency, no vote, no outreach.

This data had long served as a critical benchmark for performance, accreditation, and recruiting. For prospective students, pass rate transparency helped identify which programs were successful. For schools, it validated years of work and provided leverage in securing funding or accreditation. And for the industry at large, it was proof of pipeline integrity.

Now that public accountability is gone—at a time when California has lost most of its court reporting programs and desperately needs new talent to enter the field. The CRB is actively cutting off the profession’s ability to grow, promote itself, and survive. This isn’t just negligence. It’s sabotage.

---

What You Can Do – Advocate for Fairness—Now

If you’re frustrated, good. Now let’s turn that into action. Because this isn’t just about policy—it’s about people. And right now, a young mother who has dedicated five years of her life to mastering machine shorthand is being blocked from even taking the test she’s spent half a decade preparing for.

She’s raised a child while doing speed drills. She’s worked in courtrooms. She’s hit 225. She’s ready for the November 2025 CSR exam, which may be the last one offered under the current standard before the CRB moves forward with the RPR-aligned changes. And yet her school—Downey Adult School—is withholding its sponsorship.

That’s unacceptable.

✉️ Write to the School

We encourage court reporters, educators, students, attorneys, and industry allies to write letters directly to Downey Adult School asking them to:

• Allow this student to qualify for the November CSR exam at 200 wpm, the state’s current minimum.
• Grant her a school-level waiver or exception, given the time, effort, and commitment she has demonstrated.
• Honor the standard she enrolled under, not impose a shifting goalpost weeks before the exam.
• Do the right thing—not for numbers, but for equity, integrity, and access to licensure.

📬 Write to the CRB

Send letters to the California Court Reporters Board urging them to:

• Immediately adopt a grandfather clause for current students who have trained under the CSR standard.
• Guarantee that all students enrolled before the standard changed will have a fair and reasonable opportunity to test under the requirements they’ve been working toward.
• Issue written guidance to schools outlining this grandfather protection to avoid more unfair exclusions.
• Halt any further policy changes until public comment is taken from both schools and students.

---

This young mother is not an exception—she is the face of your future workforce. If we don’t fight for her now, we’re signaling to every hardworking student: “You don’t matter.”

Let’s make sure she gets her chance. Let’s hold the schools and the Board accountable. And let’s remind them that this profession is built on fairness, accuracy, and truth—starting with how we treat our own.

Disclaimer

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

• The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
• Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):