Gary Ackerman @garyackerman@qoto.org

The most rigorous self-proclaimed “data-driven” leaders tend to be troubled the most by the question “how do you know?”

When you start believing your own “data” you are doomed.

“If we do this, that will happen.”
Nature often disagrees.

The dysfunction in an organization is proportional to the number of members who “pass the buck.”

You can tell much about leaders by watching their actions at “mission critical” events. In education, watch them interact with students.

If one can only use math to answer questions on a test, does one really know math?

There is nothing that makes a teacher smile more than seeing a former student (who was a pain) dealing with their misbehaving children in public.

Mutation is random. There long-term effects are not. It produces the appearance of design, but appearances can be deceiving.

“It’s human nature” is using followed by an opinion given by someone completely unfamiliar with what we actually know about human nature.

If your organization insists on silos (e.g. this department must fix those problems). But departments are unresponsive, then folks will find workarounds, many of which degrade the systems.

I see lots of commercials for prescription drugs. They say to ask your doctor about it. It’s a six month wait to see a doctor in my area. I couldn’t get those products even if I needed them, yet the commercials continue.

What is the proper reaction when the speaker on DEI has slides with inaccessible text and graphics?

"Objective assessment" is impossible.

One thing I learned during 30 years as a teacher: 8th grade math (substitute the grade and subject of choice) isn’t really a thing.

“Skepticism” and “rejecting evidence” are not the same.

The economic models used in education for the last several decades assumes an economy of scarcity (get it and keep others away to ensure its value), but human knowledge doesn’t work that way. We know more when those around us do too.

Probably the worst thing that happens as one goes through school is their BS detector is removed.

“I’m going to use this technology to counter this other technology, thus returning things to the way they were.”

Yeah. This is a recipe for disaster.

If you think generative AI is going to be trouble for education, you should read what they said about paper.

Is making assignments “ChatGPT-proof” the same as “making them more effective to support writing and thinking?”