California has a proud, century-long tradition of producing the fastest, most accurate, and most resilient court reporters in the nation. Yet today, the very schools that keep this legacy alive are under siege — not from AI or attrition, but from within our own professional ranks.
In recent months, the California Department of Education has subjected the state’s only NCRA-approved court reporting school to a series of audits and re-accreditations so extensive they would make a Fortune 500 compliance officer sweat. And while that school has continued to produce more Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs) than any other institution in the state — often against impossible odds — some of our own professional associations appear to have lent their platforms to outside voices whose messages, intentionally or not, may undermine that progress.
The DRA’s Role – Advocacy or Abandonment?
The Deposition Reporters Association (DRA) was founded on a promise: to protect and advance the professional interests of California’s freelance court reporters. Its legislative advocacy has, at times, been heroic. But lately, its speaker lineups and event agendas seem to reflect a drift from the lived realities of working reporters.
At a recent DRA-promoted event, an out-of-state speaker — herself a school owner — was invited to discuss theory and training approaches for students. On its face, that might sound like healthy educational exchange. In practice, however, many in the community perceived it differently: as the redirection of California students toward unaccredited, online programs that emphasize writing “shorter” rather than “better.”
The irony is hard to ignore. The DRA, an organization built to champion California’s reporters, gave its platform to individuals some view as marketing programs that compete with — and potentially draw students away from — the only NCRA-approved program in the state.
The Only NCRA-Approved School Standing Alone
For those outside the education loop, here’s the gravity: California has one — and only one — NCRA-approved program remaining. That school’s faculty bring decades of courtroom and legislative experience, teaching time-tested speed-building methods like RWG theory, grounded in precision, endurance, and accuracy.
They have long formed the backbone of our licensing pipeline, producing the majority of California’s CSR passers year after year. Their graduates consistently rank among the fastest, most reliable reporters entering the field. Yet instead of being championed, they’ve had to navigate wave after wave of bureaucratic review — extensive audits, re-accreditations, and compliance demands — all while watching students gravitate toward programs promising quick results that seldom deliver lasting mastery.
California’s court reporting shortage is not a failure of pedagogy; it’s a failure of support. The institution that continues to produce real results should be celebrated, not sidelined.
The “Write Shorter” Mirage
A new instructional trend has gained traction under the banner of “innovation”: the “write shorter” theory — a minimalist approach promising rapid progress through abbreviated dictionaries. It’s a tempting message: “Less writing equals faster speeds.”
But in practice, this shortcut often leads to incomplete transcripts, higher untranslates, and plateaus for students who never develop the endurance that true realtime proficiency requires.
Speed champions like Mark Kislingbury, Anissa Nierenberger, and countless NCRA legends didn’t reach the top by writing less; they did it by writing stronger and more consistently. Endurance and precision — not abbreviation — built the reputation of our profession.
And when students from “shortcut” programs struggle to pass the CSR or leave the field altogether, the impact is not limited to education providers. It ripples through California’s justice system — resulting in delayed cases and unmet demand for qualified stenographers.
The Audits Nobody Talks About
Meanwhile, California’s one remaining NCRA-approved school has faced an intense level of regulatory oversight, including repeated Department of Education reviews and audits — each demanding detailed compliance on everything from attendance logs to tuition accounting. To its credit, the school has consistently met those standards and earned re-approval, only to face the next round shortly thereafter.
It’s a level of scrutiny that would test any institution, particularly one operating in a niche profession with limited funding. Yet through it all, the program continues to graduate licensed CSRs and uphold rigorous academic and ethical standards.
Which raises an uncomfortable question: Where is the visible support from our professional associations?
Where are the public statements of solidarity, the letters of recognition, the speaking invitations for these educators who have kept California’s licensure pipeline alive?
Who Deserves the Microphone
If the DRA genuinely aims to lead, it can start by elevating the voices of those doing the If the DRA genuinely aims to lead, it can start by elevating the voices of those doing the work right here in California — not those marketing external programs with no stake in our licensure system.
There’s no shortage of talent at home:
- Program directors who coach students through dictation exams
- Veteran reporters who volunteer as test proctors and mentors
- Administrators who have restructured curricula repeatedly to satisfy DOE requirements
- Instructors whose teaching produces measurable, credentialed outcomes
These are the people DRA audiences deserve to hear from — professionals contributing directly to California’s sustainability and success.
The Ripple Effect of Neglect
Every student who leaves a California school for an unaccredited shortcut program is one less candidate taking the CSR. Every CSR license unfilled is one more case delayed, one more attorney forced into a digital recording nightmare, one more transcript with no certification, no chain of custody, and no accountability.
And every time our professional associations stay silent — or appear to endorse questionable alternatives — the message to Sacramento is clear: court reporters can’t even agree on what’s worth protecting.
That disunity becomes the pretext for legislative moves like AB 711, for the digital recording lobby’s arguments about “modernization,” and for policymakers who assume our schools are obsolete. They’re not. They’re just outnumbered, underfunded, and increasingly overlooked by the very people who should be defending them.
A Call for Accountability — and Inclusion
It’s time for the DRA to realign with its core mission.
- Invite California’s NCRA-approved school leaders to your next event.
- Showcase instructors producing licensed CSRs.
- Advocate for fairer DOE oversight and funding for accredited programs.
- Speak out against recruitment practices that divert California students from the licensure pipeline.
That’s what principled leadership looks like in a profession built on accuracy, ethics, and truth.
The DRA’s advocacy record deserves respect — but advocacy extends beyond legislation. It means loyalty to the very ecosystem that sustains us: students, schools, mentors, and institutions that still believe in the art of reporting.
Restoring Trust and Transparency
If concerns about external recruitment or conflicts of interest have circulated among members, DRA leadership can strengthen confidence through open dialogue. Transparency, not silence, builds trust. Addressing these perceptions head-on would reaffirm the association’s commitment to education and ethics alike.
The Final Word
The future of court reporting in California depends not on how many lobbyists we hire, but on how many students we inspire — and that inspiration begins in the classroom. The DRA now has an opportunity to prove it stands with the educators preserving our legacy, not the opportunists promoting shortcuts.
The question remains:
Will the DRA amplify the voices preserving our craft — or those dismantling it from the outside?
Steno Imperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.
Disclaimer
Editor’s Note: This article is based on public records, regulatory filings, and California statutes. The author’s commentary represents opinion on matters of public concern. No allegations of wrongdoing are made beyond the facts cited.
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):
STENOIMPERIUM 