Posted by Eddie Mercado on Feb 09, 2017; 6:20pm
URL: https://nabble.aealearningonline.org/Topic-4-Narrative-Voice-tp3794p7045.html

Big Idea: What students "ought to learn" is open for debate

Given the growing focus on standards to drive the construction of curriculum for the modern day classroom, there is a lot of discussion about what should and should not be taught as part of a class on any particular topic.  This discussion is part of a debate about the role of the teacher as the delivery mechanism for content.  Politicians, administrators, parents, businesses, and many other parties all have invested interest in creating content that is meaningful, purposeful, and adequately rigorous. However, just because someone has an interest in the outcomes of education, does that necessarily give them the right to have a say in the development of content.

This debate has similarities to the development of a new piece of innovative technology.  Even though I (as a consumer) have an invested interest in the quality, effectiveness, cost and availability of this technology, that doesn't necessarily give me a role in the development of the technology.  I have no expertise that would help me provide practical input about the product; I have no resources to provide that will affect the development of the product; and I have no experience using this product that would yield any meaningful feedback about its development.  That said, once the product exists and I have access to its use ... I am in a much better position to provide input that would be of use to those tasked with the product's creation.  But the developmental process necessarily needs to start with those possessing the expertise to direct this production with maximum relevancy.

In education, everyone wants students in that system to be the "best product" they can be.  Unfortunately, the "outcome" at the heart of this debate is a person ... not a thing.  How does a politician, or an administrator, or a parent provide input about the developmental process of our public education system when they are not the target of its efficacy?  If they are not directly connected to the learning of any individual student in that system, then the value of their input is diminished in direct proportion to the distance of their connection.  Those more closely connected to the needs of the student, necessarily have more value attributed to their input.  They are on the front lines, and their input should have greater relevancy to the discussion what "should be taught".  However, over-reliance on rigid metrics like standardized testing as a measure of instructional effectiveness is not a way to develop "expertise" about outcomes or quality of content.  This rests exclusively with the individuals in the system, and their is simply no substitute for their input.  Students "should be taught" what they want to learn, and it is up to the teacher to connect that desire to learn with the tools that will help that student be successful in life.