From the early 1900s to the present, there have always been inconsistencies in how teachers evaluate the writing quality of their students' essays. Their critiques vary as much as their personalities. To establish common standards in writing for all courses in which essays are assigned and, at the same time, not infringe on the integrity of evaluators, nor limit the means of expression available to students, the School of Human Services at Springfield College in Massachusetts implemented a two-course writing sequence that featured the same course objectives when conducted on any of the college's campuses. In addition, the Springfield College Writing across the Curriculum Committee piloted and published "Reading Writing! How to Evaluate, Edit, and Respond to What Others Have Written" (Andersen and Fraizer, 1998), which offers faculty members a range of options for evaluating writing and responding to student essays. The book also provides suggestions for teaching students how to identify, correct, and avoid repeating their own conventional errors. An outcomes-assessment measurement implemented at two School of Human Services campuses indicated the program's positive impact. Establishing writing courses with in-common learning objectives, introducing faculty members to different ways of responding to student essays, and providing students with a writing guide and tutors trained to be supportive in their approach to writing not only created consistency in the ways students wrote and instructors evaluated, but the students wrote better and the instructors evaluated more effectively.