I have fought Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for seven years. Although the “accountability movement” has done much good, in my judgment, SLOs constitute a misguided and reductive Skinnerian behaviorism (for example, SLOs are silent on the student’s effect on student learning). Unfortunately, SLOs are also mandated by most accrediting agencies. I have watched this Trojan Horse being maneuvered inside the walls by hucksters using “it’s just” deception, as in “it’s just dialogue” and “it’s just formalizing what we already do.” Not really; faculty-written SLOs are temporary and simply provide the “buy-in” and framework for easy replacement by state and national standards. The huckster plan really was to drown criticism and opposition producing a faux unanimity. That scheme failed on my campus because SLO apostates composed a disclaimer modeled on one a Quaker professor was allowed to attach to her state-mandated loyalty oath. Our disclaimer reads, in part:
As a credentialed teacher, I want to state my belief that Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) violate both the spirit and the tenets of academic freedom. I further affirm that my participation in SLO formulation and assessment has been under duress and coerced by threats of institutional probation and/or loss of accreditation. I believe SLO assessment represents an un-negotiated increase in workload, and in my professional judgment, SLOs have no demonstrable positive effect on learning.
I publish the disclaimer in every course syllabus and even bought a red ink stamp to print it onto every SLO document I handle. This lets me obey orders and still register dissent. As our text spread around the state, one vice president called it “the infamous disclaimer.” Achieving fame is pleasing, but, in this case, achieving infamy is the true mark of success.
