Edu Babble: The Jargon of Bad Teachers

Child: "Mommy! Guess what, I scored a hundred on my authentic summative assessment!"

Mother: "What subject?"

Child: "Multiple contextualized digital mashup literacies."

Mother: "I am so proud!"

Such an exchange would sound ridiculous between mother and child. It sounds just as ridiculous when coming from teachers who insist on speaking edu-babble. Many vocations need specialized jargon. It stands to reason that professionals need a specialized language to communicate with colleagues, one that might sound foreign to the ear of those outside the field. Teaching is no exception, but something in the teaching profession went ridiculously wrong. Its specialized jargon is just silly. This teacher's jargon, this edu-babble does not serve to enhance communication with colleagues, students, or their parents. If anything, it does just the opposite. It serves to obfuscate.

Most edu-babble terms are superfluous. Terms are bandied about when conventional English would suffice just fine. For example, the word 'pedagogy' is often used instead of the word 'teaching'. I suspect that some time ago some 'educational theorist' (I hate that expression, more on that later) used this term in some pompous, unreadable article and the expression stuck. Perhaps these writers think that such terminology helps legitimize the topic: "Look at us, we are almost like science!"

Teachers don't use the words 'test' or 'quiz' anymore. The appropriate terms this week are 'assessment' or 'evaluation'. More 'enlightened' teachers offer 'authentic evaluations'.  Imagine a teacher telling students: "Please clear your desks. It's time for our authentic evaluation".

In practice, teachers mercifully don't use edu-babble in the classroom. Nor do polite teachers waste parent's time with such artificial prose. I suspect that teachers that do overuse the lingo when conferring with parents are just trying to show off. It is as if to say: "Look at me. I can use all these fancy words that you don't know. I am the professional, you are just some dumb rube."

Edu-babble doesn't serve student or parents. It serves bad teachers who hide behind the jargon. I have attended many a tedious meeting where teachers seem to be showing off for one another by demonstrating their fluency in edu-babble. Edu-babble is also pleasing to those in the Education departments of universities, whose bread and butter depend it. Educational articles are typically tedious things. Writers tend to go overboard trying to impress their fellow 'educational theorist' (Ugh!) with their pseudo-intellectual sounding erudition. I suspect that these writers enjoy conjuring new phrases in hope that these terms find a permanent home in the edu-babble lexicon.

It's worth noting that most college professors eschew edu-babble. College professors are not required to have teaching credentials, and so are spared the experience of attending Schools of Education. Yet, somehow they manage to communicate with peers

.

There is a funny web-site that explains what some edu-babble terms really mean: http://www.illinoisloop.org/buzzwords.html

A few examples include:

1. Lifelong learning: They won't learn much around here, so we'll show them how to look it up later
2. Authentic assessment: Subjective, touchie-feelie measures of vaguely-defined goals
3. Collaborative projects: learn how to run in packs and let someone else do the work
4. Technology: an expensive way to have even more projects
5. A degree in Education: Shows high tolerance for mindless ed school drivel
6. Research has shown: Other people say so, too