Infected by linguistic lunacy
IT’S THAT time of year when public school administrators begin to speak a second language.
Standardized testing is upon us — CRCT, SAT, GHGT — and it’s as if some alien life-force descends into the bodies of “educators.” (“Teachers” isn’t used much anymore; sounds too pedestrian, I suppose.)
Suddenly, numerous obtuse and obscure phrases start showing up at school board meetings and in school news releases, with most of those coming from administrators whose communications skills are nil.
What am I talking about?
Before the testing begins, parents will be told by school leaders that they should expedite performance-driven work with new sleep strategies at home such that critical thinking skills will be enhanced. To reassure parents, educators will tell them that educators are confident their child will do well in testing because the school has focused on child-centered, brain-compatible, classroom-based instruction which has led to greater articulation and higher-order thinking skills. New paradigms were used, staff development was extensive and more scaffolding was put in place for the mastery of learning. That will result in more performance-based, mastery-focused and learner-centered results on the test.
School officials will assure stakeholders and communities-of-interest that the school is assessment-driven and in alignment with enriched expectations. The curriculum will be described as a new collaborative of constructivist and cross-curricular convergence with compacting and integration using hands-on manipulatives for greater problem-solving. The alignment of applications and competencies will produce strategic and student-centered outcomes.
If the test results come back weak, school officials will deploy a defensive-based strategy in an effort to explain away the problems. The school will promise to reinvent and repurpose its competencies and to become more inquiry-centered. It will design to evolve new innovative goals and strategize, streamline, synthesize and synergize the disaggregated results for new differentiated lessons. It will implement new initiatives and instruction for life-long learning. And school officials will again question the process of standardized tests and argue that it is not a true measure of the school.
If the test data shows students did well, school officials will pat themselves on the back and explain that the compelling results came from a drive to embrace and empower students and teachers, which enabled them to grow and reach for a new global perspective. The school will brag about its research-based and innovative objectives and its multidisciplinary approach to learning infrastructures. It will promise to facilitate new goals and objectives with a problem-solving pedagogy and transition and morph into a high-functioning program. It will become proactive, revolutionary and a visionary school that will achieve great holistic objectives.
I’m not sure what I just wrote, but it sounds kinda educated, doesn’t it?
Honestly, I do love teachers and administrators, bless’em; but when the silly season hits, I have no idea what they’re talking about. Although they tell students to write and communicate clearly, educators fail to follow their own advice. They fall back on buzzwords and are so fuzzy in their comments that one can only laugh about it.
I’d give’em an “F” in language arts if I could.
My theory about this is that when it comes to academic achievement, the education community doesn’t know any more than the rest of us what really works and doesn’t work in the classroom. They promote a slew of theories and “research-based strategies,” but really nobody fully understands why some kids do better than other kids in an academic environment. Family wealth? Educated parents? Genes? Quality of teachers?
In the void of this unknown has developed a huge inferiority complex within the education culture, a complex so big that it hides behind jargon and inane phrases in an effort to mask its own lack of confidence. Like the kid who tries to impress a teacher on his essay by digging out the thesaurus and using big words, the education community itself uses meaningless phrases in an effort to impress (or maybe confuse) the non-academic public and to hide its own shallowness.
There is an element of conceit in all of this, too. The unique institutional structure of public schools tends to create a sense of isolation. Educators too often view the world as “us” — the all-knowing academic community — and “them,” the non-academic plebian riffraff. Throw in a handful of crazy parents and everything outside the education bubble begins to look like disorder — and educators who thrive on structure and niceties hate anything that smacks of disorder.
Whatever the underlying causes, most teachers I know recognize the silliness of academic jargon, but use it as part of the secret language so as to be accepted within the academic brotherhood. It’s all code for, “I’m one of you.”
The real problems come from administrators, state education bureaucrats and college professors who actually believe this nonsense has meaning. It doesn’t, but the reality that most school curriculum is based on this drivel is frightening.
This month is spring break time for area schools and many of those who are infected with this linguistic lunacy will be at the beach, soaking up the sun and having drinks with little umbrellas floating on top.
Or, as they might say, “We are having a shared convergence in alignment with an enrichment experience in a collegial atmosphere to empower our functionalities.”
Seriously.
Mike Buffington is co-publisher of Mainstreet Newspapers, Inc. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
Suddenly, numerous obtuse and obscure phrases start showing up at school board meetings and in school news releases, with most of those coming from administrators whose communications skills are nil.
What am I talking about?
Before the testing begins, parents will be told by school leaders that they should expedite performance-driven work with new sleep strategies at home such that critical thinking skills will be enhanced. To reassure parents, educators will tell them that educators are confident their child will do well in testing because the school has focused on child-centered, brain-compatible, classroom-based instruction which has led to greater articulation and higher-order thinking skills. New paradigms were used, staff development was extensive and more scaffolding was put in place for the mastery of learning. That will result in more performance-based, mastery-focused and learner-centered results on the test.
School officials will assure stakeholders and communities-of-interest that the school is assessment-driven and in alignment with enriched expectations. The curriculum will be described as a new collaborative of constructivist and cross-curricular convergence with compacting and integration using hands-on manipulatives for greater problem-solving. The alignment of applications and competencies will produce strategic and student-centered outcomes.
If the test results come back weak, school officials will deploy a defensive-based strategy in an effort to explain away the problems. The school will promise to reinvent and repurpose its competencies and to become more inquiry-centered. It will design to evolve new innovative goals and strategize, streamline, synthesize and synergize the disaggregated results for new differentiated lessons. It will implement new initiatives and instruction for life-long learning. And school officials will again question the process of standardized tests and argue that it is not a true measure of the school.
If the test data shows students did well, school officials will pat themselves on the back and explain that the compelling results came from a drive to embrace and empower students and teachers, which enabled them to grow and reach for a new global perspective. The school will brag about its research-based and innovative objectives and its multidisciplinary approach to learning infrastructures. It will promise to facilitate new goals and objectives with a problem-solving pedagogy and transition and morph into a high-functioning program. It will become proactive, revolutionary and a visionary school that will achieve great holistic objectives.
I’m not sure what I just wrote, but it sounds kinda educated, doesn’t it?
Honestly, I do love teachers and administrators, bless’em; but when the silly season hits, I have no idea what they’re talking about. Although they tell students to write and communicate clearly, educators fail to follow their own advice. They fall back on buzzwords and are so fuzzy in their comments that one can only laugh about it.
I’d give’em an “F” in language arts if I could.
My theory about this is that when it comes to academic achievement, the education community doesn’t know any more than the rest of us what really works and doesn’t work in the classroom. They promote a slew of theories and “research-based strategies,” but really nobody fully understands why some kids do better than other kids in an academic environment. Family wealth? Educated parents? Genes? Quality of teachers?
In the void of this unknown has developed a huge inferiority complex within the education culture, a complex so big that it hides behind jargon and inane phrases in an effort to mask its own lack of confidence. Like the kid who tries to impress a teacher on his essay by digging out the thesaurus and using big words, the education community itself uses meaningless phrases in an effort to impress (or maybe confuse) the non-academic public and to hide its own shallowness.
There is an element of conceit in all of this, too. The unique institutional structure of public schools tends to create a sense of isolation. Educators too often view the world as “us” — the all-knowing academic community — and “them,” the non-academic plebian riffraff. Throw in a handful of crazy parents and everything outside the education bubble begins to look like disorder — and educators who thrive on structure and niceties hate anything that smacks of disorder.
Whatever the underlying causes, most teachers I know recognize the silliness of academic jargon, but use it as part of the secret language so as to be accepted within the academic brotherhood. It’s all code for, “I’m one of you.”
The real problems come from administrators, state education bureaucrats and college professors who actually believe this nonsense has meaning. It doesn’t, but the reality that most school curriculum is based on this drivel is frightening.
This month is spring break time for area schools and many of those who are infected with this linguistic lunacy will be at the beach, soaking up the sun and having drinks with little umbrellas floating on top.
Or, as they might say, “We are having a shared convergence in alignment with an enrichment experience in a collegial atmosphere to empower our functionalities.”
Seriously.
Mike Buffington is co-publisher of Mainstreet Newspapers, Inc. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
I pride myself on teaching English rather than "language arts" because it narrows and defines the subject matter. From the Department of Education in Washington to the College of Education at UGA, there should be a "defunding" effort. Then schools could afford to teach, and would have real subjects to teach.