A reader from North Carolina sent this wonderful post, filled with words that can be used to play “Ed-Lingo Bingo” during professional development time.
When I was conducting research in San Diego about 2006, teachers there shared a list of Bingo words that they had compiled from many P.D. days.
They called it “B.S. Bingo,” and the idea was to mark off a box each time you heard one of the words, and shout Bingo! when you reached a straight line on your card.
You too can find useful and amusing things to do with the meaningless language that too often fills the air.
I agree with Duane that this needs updating. Here was one suggestion I came across. I think this group could come up with some amazing bingo cards. http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/ed-reform-bullpucky-bingo/
There were several state of the union bingo cards created. This was one I thought was well done.but not Education focused enough http://www.aauw.org/2014/01/13/sotu-bingo-2014/
If I get time I may use Robert Shepard’s list to make bingo cards for everyone. See his commets. https://dianeravitch.net/2014/02/07/when-did-gibberish-replace-conventional-english/#comments
I found an online bingo card maker- just copy Robert’s terms with comma or add your own. Takes just a few seconds.
http://bingo.saksena.net/bingo
or here http://www.bingocardapp.com/
I made one of these bingo cards for Seattle School Board meetings – great fun.
Pair Bingo with one of the Edushyster’s wine boxes and PD could be true project based learning!
This will, I think, work for Ed-Lingo Bingo:
Anchor standards
Anchor text
Assessment
Authentic text
Benchmarking
College and Career Readiness
Common Core
Complex text
Data
Data chat
Data points
Diagnostic
Ensure
Evaluation
Formative
Foundational texts
Gates
Gates Foundation
Higher expectations
Higher standards
Higher-order thinking skills
Informative text
Intervention
Lexile
Low Expectations
Measurement
Metrics
Outcomes
PARCC or Smarter Balanced
Proven strategy
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Reader and Task Factors
Quantitative measures
Research based
Rigor
Scientific and technical texts
State test
Test format
Test preparation
Text quality
Value-added
Value-added measurement
Add Evidence, Field Test, Item, Mid-Year Assessment, Released Item, and Task to the list above.
Extra points for any of the following:
Blueprint
Computer-adaptive
Construct
Embedded Support
Evidence
Growth Modeling
Evidence-Based Selected Response
Learning Design Collaborative or LDC
Model Content Frameworks
Performance Assessment
Performance-Based Assessment
Performance-Level Descriptors
Prose Constructed Response
Reliability
Scale Score
Summative Assessment
Technology-Enhanced Constructed Response
Technology-Enhanced Item(s)
Universal Design for Assessment
Validity
correction to that second list:
Extra points for any of the following:
Blueprint
Computer-adaptive
Construct
Embedded Support
Growth Modeling
Evidence-Based Selected Response
Learning Design Collaborative or LDC
Model Content Frameworks
Performance Assessment
Performance-Based Assessment
Performance-Level Descriptors
Prose Constructed Response
Reliability
Scale Score
Summative Assessment
Technology-Enhanced Constructed Response
Technology-Enhanced Item(s)
Universal Design for Assessment
Validity
or, items from the second list can be added to Bingo cards for more challenging rounds with uber-deformers
Great lists!
Don’t forget Danielson. Shouldn’t that be an automatic winner space???
oh yes
Along with those overused terms, we could add: mind maps, learning targets, k (know), u (understand), d (do or demonstrate).
And you have our backs, Ms. Ravitch, when we yell, “Bingo!”? Do we yell, “Bingo, dianeravitch.net!”
We played BS Bingo at a staff meeting once. The poor principal knew something was up by the way we were hanging on to every word and asking pointed questions to get her to use certain terms. (Some may call that cheating, but all’s fair in love, war, and saving one’s sanity.) It didn’t take long for someone to shout out “Bullsh**!” It was one of the rare few staff meetings that was actually enjoyable.
Too, too, too funny!
Honored for mention of my blog on this site. Great ideas above! We’ve been discussing making new cards for 2014.
I’ve been in education for 20+ years. I know the field has been full of jargon since it’s inception (Dewey’s 1902 “The Child and The Curriculum” is good for a glance at early terminology roots)… but the exponential growth of marketing inspired lingo is madness. Too many PD sessions turning into sales pitches rather than discussions of learning practices. And thus the need for bingo cards to call attention to the insanity.
It is time to drop the jargon and focus on the unique, talented child in front of us.
Here’s a particularly ugly meme that has started appearing with great frequency in these PD “trainings” (Sit up. Roll over. Good boy.): “Let me just say up front that we’re not here for a gripe session, so please keep any non-constructive comments to yourself.” Translation: This is a one-way event. We talk. You listen.
Looks the catalogue for ASCD. Having said that, a number of these terms do represent instructional strategies that could make real differences in classrooms. The continuing problem we in education have with each of these strategies is poor implementation. For any of these strategies to realize their full potential in a classroom a school district would first have be sure that strategy fits into the instructional worldview of the school. In other words, schools have a tendency to adopt the technique of the day/year (see bingo board) without noticing that the technique may conflict philosophically with other adopted techniques in the building. Secondly, the sheer number of strategies that flood a building each year provide no time for a teaching staff to fully master that strategy. And finally, each of the strategies placed on the bingo board, represent a pedagogy that encompasses a body of theories, concepts, and practices that are never fully developed for teachers. Anyone of the strategies listed on the bingo card would require the enrollment of teachers in a sophisticated staff development program for several years before that strategy would become an everyday reality in a classroom—even then, as a number of research studies have pointed out, depending on a number of cognitive, social, emotional, and institutional variables teachers may resist/oppose a new instructional theory. The thrust of this blog site as been the shortcomings of policy makers and administrative CEO’s to understand what goes on in the real world of schooling and poor implementation of these policies. But we educators also must look at ourselves and the field we practice, and make sure that we remain professionally up to speed on worthwhile research that create the kinds of classrooms that are listed in school mission statements. Unfortunately, as a teacher, administrator, and consultant, I have too often witnessed fellow teachers whose focus is on extracurricular activities, their other job outside of school, earning a masters degree in areas that are quick and easy (school administration), and very little attention to reading research in their field, practicing new theory-driven instructional strategies, or enrolling in a challenging staff development program (e.g. reading recovery). I know, I know, this comment will draw a lot of recriminations about poor working conditions, incompetent administrators, and thoughtless mandates, but as a profession we must make sure that we are all at the top of our game before we enter political and instructional ball park.
Looks the catalogue for ASCD. Sadly, yes.
Looks [like] the catalog. We all wish there was an edit feature on this blog. Outstanding post, Alan!
But we educators also must look at ourselves and the field we practice, and make sure that we remain professionally up to speed on worthwhile research that create the kinds of classrooms that are listed in school mission statements.
That’s one of the wisest statements ever made on this blog.
And a very good reason for not having ossified standards.
Although I am in favor of humor—especially when it lightens the heaviness of understanding important, yet complex ideas, or when it provides a needed distraction from banal and minimally engaging professional learning—I find the “Ed Lingo Bingo” professionally insulting.
It suggests that teachers lack professional interest, or view theoretical and pedagogical ideas in teaching and learning with disdain.
Given such “humor,” it’s not surprising that the general public and other professionals sometimes/often view teachers as anti-intellectual and marginally competent.
Thank you Mr. Jones for making the point about the need to be professionally engaged in the teaching/learning arts and sciences—despite the conditions teachers often found themsevles in. Your thoughts speak to my concern regarding the use/abuse of educational theory and practice here.
They call it bs for a reason. Theteachers know most of it has no substance and theyve been beaten down by it all through inane Pd.