OK, let's unpack this. You know, we've all been
there, I think, whether it's in our work lives
or just trying to figure out everyday stuff,
that moment when you're asked to go along with
something, but well, you fundamentally disagree
with it philosophically. It creates this real
tension. It really does. And what happens when
that exact conflict pops up in education where
it's not just about you, but it directly impacts
students? That's exactly where we're headed today.
Yeah, our source material for this deep dive
comes from a really insightful piece. It's by
Gary Ackerman called Should Educators Judge Initiatives
over on hackscience .education. Great. And it
gives this compelling look at those uncomfortable
spots educators get put in, you know, when school
leaders bring in changes that the educators just
don't believe in. So our mission today is to
really get into Ackerman's own experiences, his
observations. Exactly. See what the implications
are when you take a stand. or maybe when you
don't take one. And really question what good
leadership and sound practice actually look like
in education today. Okay, so here's where it
gets, well, personal and really interesting.
Let's start with Ackerman's own moments of courage,
I suppose you'd call it. Yeah, you share some
powerful one. Imagine being an educator, right?
You believe really deeply in a certain way of
teaching, a philosophy, and then you see it just
tossed aside. It's tough. He talks about specific
situations like his opposition to replacing middle
school practices he knew worked. OK, tell me
more about that. What was the change exactly?
Why was he so against it? Well, the shift was
away from what he saw is these really effective
middle school approaches, things like, you know,
being student centered, connecting subjects,
focusing on how adolescents actually develop
the holistic view. Exactly. And moving towards
a more. traditional maybe compartmentalized junior
high model, he just saw it as a step backward,
bad for the students. And he pushed back? He
did, quite strongly. And it had consequences,
professional ones. Like what? Well, ultimately,
he ended up looking for a new role because the
philosophical gap was just too wide. And what's
fascinating, really fascinating, is that even
when a reference check came back saying he was,
quote, uncooperative. Ouch. That label. Right.
But that very stance, his commitment to those
middle school ideas was exactly why he landed
his next job. Wow. So the thing that labeled
him difficult in one context was seen as a strength,
a sign of conviction in another. It really shows
something about finding the right fit professionally.
It's like that phrase, damned if you do, damned
if you don't. But in his case, standing firm
actually led him to a place where his values
were. Well, value. Absolutely spot on. It's a
powerful illustration that integrity, even when
it causes friction, can guide you to where you
really belong. OK, so that's one powerful example
of personal conviction. But then he shares something
even more direct involving the students themselves.
Ah, yes. This one is really poignant. The real
tears story. Tell us about that. He describes
being in a computer lab situation where students
were doing these really engaging explorations,
coding. video game design, stuff they loved and
were actually learning from. Sounds great. Hands
on relevant. Exactly. And then suddenly it gets
swapped out, replaced by a test preparation site.
Oh. And he literally saw students crying, real
tears, because these activities they found meaningful
were just gone. Heartbreaking, really. It hit
him hard. And seeing that, it convinced him he
couldn't just go along with it. So what did he
do? I mean, test prep is often pushed for practical
reasons, metrics, accountability. Right. But
for Ackerman, seeing those tiers, it crystallized
the issue. This was prioritizing abstract metrics
over actual meaningful student learning. The
human cost was just too visible, too high. So
he refused. He refused to support the test prep
initiative directly. Instead, he actually worked
with the teachers. to figure out ways to bring
back more engaging, more worthwhile activities
during that computer lab time, despite the new
directive. That took some guts, I imagine, working
around the official plan. It certainly did. And
it really throws that question into sharp relief,
doesn't it? What does the human cost when we
let metrics completely overshadow meaningful
learning experiences? It's not just about scores.
It affects kids emotionally. Definitely. So we've
seen Ackerman's personal stands, but he also
looks outward. Observes other leaders. Yes, he
widens the lens and he talks about this incident
with a school administrator This leader was facing
having to defend changes to The grading system
grading always a hot topic always and Ackerman
quotes this administrator is saying something
like I can do what you want Just tell me what
it is proficiencies. I can speak that language
traditional grades. I can do that, too Okay.
On the surface, I can almost see someone thinking,
well, that's flexible, pragmatic. Right. It sounds
adaptable, like they can roll with punches. But
Ackerman says he found it very troubling. Why
troubling? What's the problem with being adaptable?
Because in Ackerman's view, this wasn't adaptability.
It was an application of leadership. Especially,
he notes, coming from someone who's almost finished
with their doctorate. Ah, so someone highly educated
in the field. Exactly. Someone qualified to actually
analyze these different approaches like proficiency
-based learning versus traditional AF grades
to understand their research, the implications.
And make an informed judgment about what's actually
sound practice. Precisely. But instead of using
that expertise to guide the decision, to argue
for what they believe was best for students,
this leader just offered to be a mouthpiece for
whatever was decided elsewhere. Just tell me
what to say. So Ackerman's critique is that leaders,
maybe even highly educated ones, are taking their
cues from politicians, maybe philanthropists,
business interests, instead of trusting their
own deep knowledge. their understanding of kids,
of learning, of teaching. It's a really powerful
critique. Yeah, it's just a kind of hollowing
out of educational expertise at the leadership
level. That's a good way to put it. This I can
do what you want approach, Ackerman argues, shows
a worrying trend. prioritizing, playing the game,
maybe political expediency over pedagogical conviction.
So it's not just about judging initiatives, it's
about having the courage to act on that judgment.
Yes. He feels that if you've studied education
at the highest levels, you have not just the
ability but arguably the responsibility to analyze,
to judge, and to advocate for what you believe
is sound. Avoiding that is. Well, it's avoiding
leadership. We've covered a lot of ground here,
really digging into Gary Ackerman's perspective
on educators' judging initiatives. We have. We
looked at the personal stakes, like Ackerman
facing being called uncooperative, but finding
a better fit because of his convictions. Right,
and that really heart -wrenching story of the
computer lab shifting focus from student engagement
to pure test prep. And then that critical observation
of the administrator, choosing perceived flexibility
over taking a principled, informed stand on something
as fundamental as grading. It really underscores
a wider concern, doesn't it, that sometimes external
pressures or trends can kind of overshadow the
actual expertise of people in the classroom,
people who really understand teaching and learning?
Absolutely. And what really shines through from
Ackerman's piece is the immense importance of
critical thinking, yes, but also conviction,
having beliefs grounded in knowledge and being
willing to stand by them. As he argues, especially
for those highly educated in the field, Analyzing
and judging ideas isn't just an option, it's,
well, it's part of the job description, a responsibility.
Which leads to a really important question for
you listening right now. In your own life, whether
it's professional or personal, how do you handle
that tension, that pull between adapting to what's
asked of you, maybe a new directive? and holding
firm to what you deeply believe is the right
way, the sound practice. What does it genuinely
mean to lead not just with knowledge, but with
real conviction, maybe even moral courage, in
a world that's just constantly throwing new information
and initiatives at us? Something to think about.