For those of you who worry that ed-tech bloggers are too much of an echo chamber, you might check out Ken DeRosa's critique of, well, not so much Chris Lehmann and Science Leadership Academy in general, as much as a particular example of student work from SLA's website.
What is truly mean-spirited about DeRosa's analysis is that he focuses much of his scorn on the students work -- "superficial analysis," "unaware," "fixates on inflammatory language," "fails to cover any of the important issues" -- without seeming to notice that the student's response perfectly fits the assignment. In fact, DeRosa doesn't seem to notice the assignment at all. He presents his example of what he thinks "a decent high-school level analysis of Dred Scott" would look like, but his work would not be an acceptable response to the prompt. He doesn't answer the question.
Now, he may think that the prompt was lousy. Fine. But go after the adults, not the kid. The student read the assignment and fulfilled it, with panache. DeRosa didn't.