English Language Arts: Revision Skills (TEKS.ELA.9-12.10.C) Practice Test

In considering whether algorithmic scoring belongs in a literature classroom, I argue that its usefulness is both overstated and under-examined. The calibration documents say reliability is high, which suggests fairness, but the way it reads the essay and the way we read are not the same, and that difference is important because it is. Moreover, the outputs feel crisp but also oddly dampened; moreover, they create a feedback loop in which writers target signals, not insights, which is a thing teachers notice but can't easily operationalize without tools that aren't here. In addition, when the rubric is built from past rubrics, the scope of what counts as evidence gets thinner while looking thicker, which is a paradox that needs a better name before it can be discussed, which some people will call semantics. This isn't a ban; it's a request for pause, but the pause cannot be forever, which is also true.

Dear Council Members, The groundwater conversation is moving through the city like the river under it, which is a metaphor that wants to help but maybe doesn't. It is notable that the Hill Country aquifers are finite, and it is notable that monitoring wells exist, and it is notable that some users have meters and some do not. Furthermore, people downstream say "conservation" and people upstream say "rights," which is a thing that recurs. The proposed ordinance would require large commercial users to report quarterly withdrawals, but this seems both too specific and not specific enough, because enforcement is unclear, and also because colonias near the edge have fragile infrastructure, and this could be hard on them, which is not the intent. I am asking for movement, but not the wrong kind of movement: please adopt reporting that is phased, equitable, and not just optics, so that the springs and the taps have an understood future.