After reading Chris’s article on the so-called “abuse” of language in the education industry, I felt he may have taken the argument a bit too far. I do agree that education is full of jargon and constantly shifting acronyms. But do I believe this language is meant to harm or confuse students? No. In most cases, these changes seem intended to be more inclusive or politically correct, not malicious.
Chris and I actually discussed this during a car ride to Fort at Number 4 yesterday. I’ve since had time to reflect more on what he said. One of our points of disagreement was the shift from the word “student” to “learner.” My own school district made this change just before COVID, and while it took a few years for me to adjust, I now use “learner” regularly.
I believe this change was made with positive intentions. To me, “learner” suggests someone who is actively engaged, not just passively sitting in a chair. It reflects a belief in the potential of every child to grow, discover, and take ownership of their learning. I don’t believe the shift was done with ill will.
Chris argued that not all students are learners—that some are disruptive and show no interest in learning. I understand his point. But I still believe all students can become learners, even if they don’t show it yet. Will every child become a lifelong learner like Chris or me? Maybe not, but we can still hope and work toward that goal.
The ever-evolving language of education doesn’t bother me much. After 38 years of teaching, I’ve learned to go with the flow. I’ve seen many changes in terminology. Chris is passionate about precision in language, and while I agree that language matters, I just don’t get as worked up about it.
When our children were in elementary school, they were in the Talented and Gifted program. Later, it was renamed the “Infinity” program. I questioned the change at first, but ultimately, nothing really changed—the same kids were in the program, and they all knew they were high achievers. It was just a new label.
Similarly, the language used around learning disabilities has changed many times. These shifts often aim to reduce stigma and promote first-person language that emphasizes the individual, not the disability. As our understanding grows, so does our vocabulary.
Chris also criticized the use of the word “friend” in classrooms, something many teachers began using in the early 2000s to refer to all students. He argued that calling every classmate a “friend” confuses children, especially when some of those classmates are bullies. I agree with him on this point. The term may have been used too broadly, but again, I don’t think it was intended to cause harm.
Ultimately, words like “student” and “learner” carry different connotations. A student is typically someone who studies within a formal structure, while a learner is more self-directed and intrinsically motivated.
So, what do we want for our children? To simply complete assigned tasks, or to become curious, independent learners? Will changing our language help us reach that goal? I’m not sure, but I don’t believe these language shifts are malicious. Most are simply well-intentioned efforts to reflect evolving values in education.
Comments
3 responses to “Educational Industry Language – Not Abuse”
With all respect … I got to this sentence in the first paragraph:
“In most cases, these changes seem intended to be more inclusive or politically correct, not malicious.”
Politically correct speech is, in my opinion and to my observation, malicious by nature and design.
As one whose job requires using language carefully to express precise meaning, I find placing “political correctness” over accuracy and efficiency to be anathema.
Calling a student who is not a learner, a learner, is doing a disservice to both the students who are “learners” and those who are not. Doing so eliminates a useful distinction for the teachers, parents and students and begins to remove the ability to discuss what makes a “learner” an actual learner.
Complete elimination of the ability to think certain thoughts or think in certain patterns was, incidentally, exactly what The Party’s Newspeak was intended to do in Orwell’s “1984.” I try to not over-reference his works, but in this case it is, I think, apropos.
Student and learner are nearly the same word differing only in ultimate source, latin or german (*). Shifting one to the other makes me think of the euphemism cycle whereby new words are invented or polished up and adopted to replace old words which have acquired a bad taste. Imbecile vs retard and that sort of thing. Is it bad ? Is it good ? To me it reeks of people who just have too much time on their hands trying to think up silly rules and enforce them on those of us with better things to worry about. There is very little good that comes of it but its probably fairly harmless in most cases.
As for calling people who are obviously not friends, friends, that’s just straight up lying.
*There are obviously a few differences but I don’t want to pick nits. Learning is not studying but they are close enough.
I was going to make the same point. Your phrase “cycle of euphemism” captures it perfectly. “The right people” decide that a term is bad, and replace it by a new one. Soon after, those same people decide that the new term is now to be considered bad and has to be replaced again. Eventually they run out of words and end up with strings of letters and punctuation marks.
The obvious question is “why?” What is the reason that a word judged to be “good” becomes “bad” within a few decades or sometimes even a few years? I don’t have any good theories.
Along these lines but somewhat different, why is it that recently the “right people” have decided that “black” shall be capitalized (but “white” of course shall not be).