Before you jump all over teachers, keep in mind this stuff does NOT come from the classroom. Many of the new test-related pieces of jargon come straight from the volumes of directives produced by the US Department of Education. Much of the rest often comes from college-level "researchers" and outside consultants who need to distinguish their stuff from everybody elses.

In the end it's district-level administrators who put it out to the general public in letters to parents and press releases. In the schools I work with, teachers still call a test a test (unless it's a quiz) and mutiple choice is just that.

Tim, you are very correct that the origin of this stuff is usually uphill (and we all know what rolls downhill). But my point is that we as teachers and school-level people don't have to give these crackpots the time of day.

But we do.

Thus all the school disctrict schools I've been in have had an IMC and not a library, and all the math teachers I've seen teach kids about "circle graphs" and not pie charts. We even had an ALC ("Alternative Learning Center") which was actually in-school suspension.

Ah, but if the kids learn all this doublespeak from their school administrators, they don't have to take time away from their video games to read Orwell's 1984 or Animal Farm.

Karen, your comment was doubleplusgood.

In the "overheard on a ship" example, "anchor" is also jargon. It is a specialized term invented to precisely define a key item for the people working in a particular field.

But how different from the other jargon, "chain-stayed ship-movement arrestor"! Anchor is short and precise. It has meant the same thing for centuries, and presents a simple and vivid image. As a result, people that have never been on a boat will still know the meaning and often use it metaphorically. I cannot imagine any eduspeak phrase ever slipping into the common language in the same way, unless an entire generation becomes so miseducated as not to know the common words.

And this is assuming that eduspeak at least meets the fundamental requirement for useful jargon, that it be a shortcut to precisely define something or some concept commonly used in a field. I doubt that most eduspeak meets that requirement. "Instructional Media Center" may have a precise meaning, but it's the same as "library". With other phrases, I doubt that there is a precise meaning at all, or that different ed. school graduates would define them the same way. That is, think eduspeak is often not a jargon that improves communication in the field, but rather is used to prevent meanings from being too clear and revealing the poverty and plain lack of common sense in the education professor's ideas.

And the really bad news is, I have met teachers that were unable to translate their own jargon into anything comprehensible to college-educated parents.

Markm, you are very correct when you say that much of eduspeak fails to meet the description of useful jargon, with precise definitions.

But I disagree that "anchor" is considered jargon. That's called "vocabulary" and just about any person over the age of 6 could match the word to a picture. Here's one definition of jargon (I like #1 and #4):

1. Nonsensical, incoherent, or meaningless talk.
2. A hybrid language or dialect; a pidgin.
3. The specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group.
4. Speech or writing having unusual or pretentious vocabulary, convoluted phrasing, and vague meaning.

Being that there's no difference between a library and an IMC, the former is simply a noun, and the latter is pretentious jargon.

Just to follow up on markm and ceb's comments: It's unfortunate that the word "jargon" has acquired several meanings, some of which contradict each other (#3 and #4 above). For example, I have some experience in NASA mission operations, and in that field we have a very specialzed jargon. The reason we have that is, that in a time-critical situation (and especially when speaking through communications channels that may be far from ideal), a miscommunication can get someone killed. So we have a vocabulary in which terms and acronyms have very precise meanings, and we have very precise ways of phrasing things and coordinating our conversations. We know exactly what we mean, but to a member of the general public something like "INCO, DPS, we're going to OPS 104 with GPC 3 as GNC, GPC 5 as SM, and GPC 2 as BFS" is complete gibberish. And so it acquires an air of mysticism, particularly when journalists try to report on it without bothering to ask anyone who actually knows what it means. Thus, it appears to the general public that we are deliberately trying to be opaque. In fact, it's very clear once you know the terminology: In the example above, the person in charge of the Shuttle's data processing systems is telling the communications officer that the Shuttle's computing systems are transitioning to an on-orbit software mode, describing which computers are performing the guidance and systems management functions, and which computer is acting as the backup processor in case the others fail. This would be #3 in the definitions above; it's short and concise, and the person hearing it is (assuming they are properly trained) unlikely to misunderstand it or need it repeated or explained to them.

Throughout history, pseudo-sciences have always tried to wrap themselves in the cloak of science by surrounding themselves in quasi-scientific, mystic jargon. It is jargon in the #4 sense above: its purpose is not to describe, but to obscure. It covers up a fundemantal lack of knowledge, and discourages inconvenient questions from people who are not members of the guild. Unlike the situation above, the reporter wouldn't be able to find anyone to explain it, because no sensible translation exists. And that seems to be where education is today -- taking its place alongside astrology and tea-leaf reading as a pseudo-science.

So - what do you do if you hear about a nearby "energetic disassembly" ?

Answer: Duck and cover immediately - that is jargon/"Spin" for an accidental nuclear detonation!

It is crushing that we must resort to eduspeak whenever we use the term itself.

The reason it's so difficult to stand up to is probably no different in the states than it is here in Australia. I recently had a Principal who "talked the talk" constantly. She always talked "around" "issues", "touched base" with colleagues and generally ralked cr#p. BUT - she was the principal, so what did all the sycophantic wannabes do? They emulated her and so we ended up with a senior staff who all talked the rubbish as well. The rest of the staff made fun of them behimd their back, but couldn't actually do anything about it for fear of reprisal. It's aim is to distinguish the powerful from the powerless and to keep everyone in their place. Thank God, I have moved on.