Thanks, Paul, for your feedback. I deeply respect your experience and accomplishments, and appreciate your perspective -- though, in this case, I do not share it.
I disagree that <i>I've</i> created "conflict over semantics and not substance" by responding to yet another jazz-handed prettification of market metaphors that have saturated the discourse of education reform, and have motivated policy and pedagogy changes that have threatened our schools' capacities to serve our students as effectively as we might. I don't disagree, in spirit, with your stated goal of "ensuring that every student graduates with the knowledge, skills, and attributes for success" -- but I don't think that's our only goal, and I'm unconvinced that articulating any such learning goals in figurative language has done any of us much good. I suspect in "encouraging...colleagues to have clear learning outcomes for students" you'd ask for language to be clear, concrete, and literal -- and argue against the use of figurative language on the grounds that semantics and substance are <i>inextricably</i> related.
Yes, a naturalist might refer to an 'ecosystem' and a geographer might refer to a 'map,' but they didn't in this case: teaching has once more been reduced to 'selling,' learning has once more been reduced to 'buying,' and education is once more reduced to an exchange of 'products' in a marketplace governed by coercive, albeit 'gently' coercive, strategies.