The Great Theory Divide – Why “Short Writing” Alone Won’t Save Court Reporting

The debate over how to best train new court reporters is more than an academic quarrel — it’s a battle over the future of the profession itself. At its core lies a fundamental question: Should students be taught to write fast or to write accurately?

This question has split the field into two camps for decades: advocates of short writing, who prioritize minimizing strokes through extensive briefing and phrasing, and proponents of traditional long or structured theories, which focus on phonetic clarity and consistency as the foundation for skill-building.

Both approaches have their place. But after more than a century of professional traditional education, and 20 years of modern “brief-heavy” experimentation, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional approach as the backbone of a strong reporter pipeline.

A Brief History of Steno Theories

Over the last 150 years, stenographic theory has evolved through multiple schools of thought, each with its own philosophy about how language should be represented on the steno machine. Some of the most well-known theories include:

• StenEd Theory – One of the most widely taught modern long theories, emphasizing phonetic structure and readability.
• Phoenix Theory – A structured system designed to be logical and consistent, popular in many U.S. programs in the late 20th century.
• Realtime Theory (CART-focused variants) – Adaptations of long theories to improve realtime output, often used in captioning programs.
• Robert Walsh Gonzalez (RWG) – A traditional syllabic system used for decades in California and other jurisdictions.
• Magnum Steno / Kislingbury Theory – A brief-heavy, phrase-intensive short-writing system developed by Mark Kislingbury, designed to reduce stroke count dramatically.
• Phoenix Eclipse Modified, StenEd Realtime, and Hybrid Theories – Various blends of structured writing with selective briefing.
• Vintage systems like Stenotype Grand, Stenograph, or Stenotype 1/2/3 – Early phonetic systems that laid the groundwork for all modern theories.

While these theories differ in rules and philosophy, most long or structured systems share two traits:

1. They teach students to write what they hear syllabically, ensuring clarity and accuracy.
2. They introduce briefs gradually, after a solid foundation is built.

Since the first steno theory was introduced in the 1910s, more than 110 distinct stenographic theories have been developed in the U.S., ranging from early phonetic systems to brief-heavy experiments. But only structured, phonetic-based theories taught in accredited programs have consistently produced reporters at scale.

Short-writing systems like Magnum Steno reverse this priority: students memorize thousands of briefs and phrases from the start, aiming to reduce stroke count and increase speed early on.

The Role of NCRA Accreditation Sets the Gold Standard

There were around 40 to 45 NCRA-accredited court reporting programs nationwide, including both campus-based and online schools. The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) established its Council on Approved Student Education (CASE) to accredit programs that meet rigorous educational, ethical, and administrative standards.

NCRA accreditation matters because it ensures that schools:

• Provide a structured curriculum grounded in proven stenographic theory.
• Meet faculty qualifications and instructional standards set by the profession.
• Maintain accurate reporting of student outcomes, including graduation and certification rates.
• Offer appropriate student services, financial accountability, and administrative oversight.
• Undergo periodic review to maintain quality and adapt to technological and professional developments.

In other words, NCRA accreditation is a quality guarantee. While non-accredited programs exist, accredited schools represent the profession’s gold standard, consistently producing certified reporters who can pass state and national exams and thrive in the working world.

Traditional Theory Is Built for Accuracy, Not Gimmicks

Traditional long theories are not “anti-brief.” Contrary to common misconceptions, students in accredited long-theory programs are introduced to core briefs for high-frequency legal words early on — terms like “Plaintiff,” “Defendant,” “Exhibit,” and others are usually written in one stroke from day one.

The key difference is scope and timing. Traditional programs prioritize phonetic structure and syllabic writing first. Students learn to write exactly what they hear. For example, if a witness says “one hundred thirty-two dollars,” the student writes:

WUN HUN THRI TWO DLARS

This produces an unambiguous record. By contrast, relying on number bar entries or complex briefs for “#132” might be faster, but one mistroke could result in “#133” — a fatal error in legal settings.

This structured foundation is precisely what allows students to pass rigorous state exams (such as California’s CSR at 200+ wpm) and handle real-world testimony: fast talkers, medical jargon, foreign names, overlapping voices, and unpredictable phrasing.

The blog post “Steno Briefs Don’t Work” on Simply Steno challenges the prevailing assumption that aggressive brief systems can reliably handle real-world reporting demands, arguing instead for the necessity of phonetic consistency and accuracy.

Short Writing Is A Promising Experiment That Hasn’t Scaled

Short-writing systems gained popularity in the early 2000s, largely through the efforts of Mark Kislingbury, whose Magnum Steno theory emphasized extreme briefing and phrasing. His argument was seductive: fewer strokes = faster writing = more graduates = a saved profession.

Two decades later, the results speak for themselves. Kislingbury’s school and affiliated programs have produced a fraction of the graduates that traditional programs have. At one point, he launched 11 affiliated schools; only a few remain today. Over roughly 20 years, the total number of graduates is estimated to be around 60 — a trickle, not a flood.

Why? Because memorization-heavy systems are cognitively demanding. Writing entire phrases in one stroke requires photographic recall of thousands of combinations. A single forgotten brief can derail a high-speed take. This may work for a small subset of speed contest prodigies, but it is not a scalable educational model.

The Real Dropout Problem Is Recruitment, Not Rigor

Much of the discussion about “high dropout rates” in court reporting focuses on academic support. But the deeper issue is who is being recruited. Many programs have shifted to volume-based enrollment, recruiting anyone who qualifies for financial aid — regardless of academic preparedness.

Court reporting demands strong language skills, critical thinking, and discipline. Yet schools rarely recruit from college graduates, pre-law programs, or linguistically skilled populations, and men remain significantly underrepresented.

A more sustainable pipeline would raise entry standards:

• Require at least a two- or four-year college degree or equivalent aptitude.
• Use intelligence and language proficiency testing as admissions criteria.
• Immediately disqualify applicants with minimal literacy exposure — someone who has never read a book is not prepared for daily exposure to legal vocabulary and realtime transcription demands.

By raising the bar on recruitment, dropout rates would fall naturally, and those who enter would be far more likely to succeed.

The Ergonomic Argument Is A Red Herring

Short-writing advocates often claim their methods reduce carpal tunnel risk by minimizing keystrokes. But the evidence doesn’t support this as a decisive factor.

As one doctor explained to me after bilateral carpal tunnel surgery following an inflammation flare-up, “You’re either predisposed to carpal tunnel or you’re not.” Many reporters work 50+ years without injury. More importantly, the QWERTY keyboard — not the steno machine — is typically the culprit.

Short writing might benefit a small group of hyper-speed writers, but for the vast majority of working reporters, it’s irrelevant.

Why Accreditation and Theory Choice Matter Now

Court reporting is under siege from digital recording and AI transcription companies that promise cheaper, faster, automated solutions. In this environment, quality matters more than ever.

NCRA-accredited programs teaching structured, time-tested theories are the only reliable pipeline producing certified reporters at scale. They have decades — in some cases, over a century — of evidence behind their methods.

Short-writing remains an interesting supplement for experienced reporters, but as a primary teaching model, it has failed to produce scalable results.

Build on What Works

Court reporting is not a startup industry that rewards constant disruption. It’s a cornerstone of due process, built on accuracy, consistency, and professionalism.

Short writing has its place for experienced reporters chasing personal speed goals. But for training new professionals, traditional, structured theories taught in NCRA-accredited programs remain the gold standard.

They work. They’ve always worked. And if the profession wants to survive the coming storm, it must defend and strengthen what works, not chase failed shortcuts.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

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):