LISTEN — Class Disrupted S3 E3: Who Decides What Gets Taught?
Receive stories like these directly to your email inbox. Subscribe to Newsletter.
Class Disrupted is a podcast about education that airs every two weeks. It features discussions between author Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner from Summit Public Schools. They engage with educators, school leaders, students, and other members of the school community to explore the challenges the education system faces during the pandemic and discuss possible directions for the future. You can find all the episodes on our Class Disrupted page or subscribe to Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or Stitcher for new episodes released every other Tuesday.
In this episode of Class Disrupted, Diane Tavenner and Michael Horn delve into the topic of who has the authority to determine the curriculum. They analyze the roles of various entities, such as government branches, teachers, parents, textbook companies, committees, and colleges.
You can listen to the episode below, and a full transcript is included.
Diane: I need to start by correcting an error from our previous episode, Michael. I mentioned that we were in the middle of the ’20-’21 school year, but that was a mistake. I somehow went back in time. I might need therapy for that slip-up. What do you think it signifies? And, by the way, you didn’t even notice my mistakes. What does that say?
Michael: I didn’t even realize it, I admit. So what does it mean? Maybe we should let our audience tell us by sending us an email or a tweet, although that might be risky for our public image. But I think it ties into why we started this podcast. We have all experienced significant disruptions and dislocations, to the point where we don’t even know what time or year it is. The education system is still heavily affected by these disruptions as we enter the third school year during the pandemic. It’s hard for many to remember that when it all began in March 2020, people thought we would only be closing schools for a couple of weeks and then return to normal. Ironically, the two-week concept is relevant again this year, with thousands of students and educators having to quarantine for that duration. Back then, we had hoped to create a limited podcast series to address the questions parents across the country were asking and explore potential opportunities for real change and reinvention of our schools.
Although we haven’t fully achieved that goal yet, there are some pockets of progress that make me more optimistic. In this third season, we can delve deeper into these topics and approach them with curiosity. We have structured the season around the classic set of questions: who, what, where, when, why, and how. Last week, we discussed the "what" by exploring the curriculum. Today, Diane, we will approach the "who" differently.
Diane: Absolutely. One of the commitments we made at the end of the previous season was to bring nuance to our discussions. So, today is going to be an exciting day in that regard. We will focus on the "who" aspect of education. Who has the authority to decide what students learn in school? This topic emerged naturally from our previous conversation about the curriculum. We are following our curiosity. It doesn’t take much curiosity to see that our society is currently highly polarized, especially evident in debates surrounding issues like masks and vaccines. This polarization is also affecting various aspects of our lives, including education. Education seems to be at the forefront of embodying this polarization. One of the areas where it becomes apparent is in debates over what should be taught to students.
Recently, there have been instances where parents are requesting permission to record their children’s classes in order to monitor the teachings of the teachers. This demand stems from concerns over the inclusion of critical race theory in the curriculum. It is important to note, Michael, that this is not what we had in mind when we envisioned technology playing a meaningful role in the redesign of schools.
Interestingly, on the other end of the spectrum, there are many students who have turned to platforms like TikTok to learn topics that they feel their schools are not adequately teaching them. This indicates a potential disruption in traditional learning methods facilitated by technology. However, today, our focus is on exploring the issue of "who gets to decide" when it comes to deciding what children are taught in schools. We aim to move beyond clickbait headlines and delve into the nuances of this matter.
Michael: Additionally, Diane, this topic is highly relevant. Just this weekend, I received an email from a well-informed teacher who posed a similar question on who truly has the authority to make curriculum-related decisions. They also questioned how they could influence these decisions, how they should express their concerns, and whom they should address regarding this matter. It is crucial to address these topical questions in order to determine who truly holds the power to make these decisions. To do so, let us identify the possible suspects involved. I have compiled a list of stakeholders, starting with the federal government, particularly the Department of Education. When people think of the Department of Education, they often refer to the political appointees, such as Secretary Betsy Devos, Secretary Miguel Cardona, and even during the Obama years, Secretary Arne Duncan. We must also consider state governments and their education boards, state superintendents, and the role of governors in appointing officials. Furthermore, school districts, including the boards of education and superintendents, hold significant influence. This extends to charter systems and the individuals leading them. This brings us to the next layer of actors, which includes school principals, parents, teachers, and students themselves. These individuals are directly involved in the day-to-day activities of schooling, Diane. Finally, we must acknowledge a group that is often overlooked but can have a significant impact on curriculum decisions: influential committees with a historical background in shaping education. Examples include the Committee of 10, which focused on high school curriculum over a hundred years ago, the National Commission on Excellence in Education, whose report in 1983 prompted reevaluation of educational outcomes, the group behind the development of Common Core, and even employers, colleges, universities, and textbook companies, all of whom have indirect influence over curriculum. As you can see, there are numerous groups involved in this matter, Diane.
Diane: Responding to that teacher will definitely require a lengthy email, Michael. Perhaps we can organize our thoughts by categorizing these individuals into three distinct groups.
Michael: I appreciate the categorization. Diane, I’m intrigued to know who you have included in the first group.
Diane: Well, in the first group, I have school principals. Being a former school principal myself and having spent significant time with them, I believe they belong in that category. Secondly, I have parents, although this may not sound favorable, I genuinely think it reflects reality. Thirdly, I have students, again, not an ideal situation, but I believe it to be true. Lastly, I place employers here. While there has been a historical shift, I don’t believe that, in our current era, employers have any considerable decision-making power regarding what is being taught in our K-12 system. That’s my list.
Michael: I largely agree with your points. However, I would like to explore some areas further to stimulate further discussion. One area where I might question is employers. As you hinted, perhaps about 20 or 25 years ago, they had more influence. A coalition of businesses played a significant role in the implementation of policies such as No Child Left Behind and various educational movements of the 1990s. Although still limited, their influence might have fallen into that third group. It is also interesting to note who is absent from your list: teachers. I am curious about where they fit in. We will address that shortly. Additionally, parents are intriguing because I agree with you. The only place where parents exert some control is when they have the ability to choose the school their child attends. Occasionally, they can select a school with a different approach, such as one that emphasizes a classical curriculum, as opposed to a state-mandated one.
Diane: I believe your point is crucial, Michael. What you are saying is that for parents to have a meaningful say in their children’s education, they must choose an entirely different school option.
Michael: They have to opt out.
Diane: And as we are aware, that is a monumental decision. Another reason why people believe that parents have influence over their children’s education is because they elect local school officials. However, as we go through this list, we will quickly realize that this theoretical power is not very substantial. Lastly, the only other power that parents and students have is the ability to opt out, whether it’s refusing to have their child read a certain book or for students to decide what they will or will not do throughout the day. Unfortunately, this is not a productive form of power.
Michael: Yes, I completely agree. You raised something interesting before moving on to the next category, which is that parents, and not just parents but voters in a democracy in general, have a certain level of de facto power. However, it is highly diffused across various layers of government. When a school board election takes place, there are usually 20 other issues on the table, one of which individuals may care about more. Therefore, their influence becomes diluted when it comes to curriculum matters. It is worth noting that when certain lines are crossed, as we see with the controversy surrounding Critical Race Theory, parents certainly voice their opinions, although not always with nuance. So, they do exert some control, but in practical terms, their influence over day-to-day teaching is quite limited. Another interesting aspect to consider is the perception that school principals hold significant control. They are seen as instructional leaders, but that is not generally the case. At best, they might have some say in selecting a school-wide social-emotional learning curriculum, which may not always be the most effective way to incorporate those skills into the learning process, as we discussed last week.
Michael: That’s intriguing. Would you say that they potentially have more authority to block controversial issues, but less power to influence the curriculum or significantly impact 90 percent of what is being taught and learned?
Diane: I completely agree with that. They might be able to prevent the use of a specific book or text, for instance. But when it comes to actively contributing to, expanding, or transforming the curriculum, I don’t think we see much of that at all.
Michael: Alright, let’s now transition to your second category, which revolves around identifying those with direct decision-making authority.
Diane: Alright. The two main entities in this category are state governments and school boards. Some may be perplexed that the federal government isn’t included! I did consider that, so we can discuss it. However, in my opinion, the two entities that hold the most control here are primarily state governments, as they establish the policies that govern schools within a state, and local school boards, which have control over the curriculum within their jurisdiction. They adopt specific local standards, among other things. So, those are the two main players in my view. What do you think about that?
Michael: I think both of them make a lot of sense. Especially the state government apparatus, such as the state board of education and the superintendent, or whatever structure exists in each state, even though there may be variations. Essentially, I agree that the state government is where the standards are established, and these standards drive the curriculum. In terms of direct decision-making authority, that aligns. There are certain aspects that are not explicitly outlined, and that’s where school boards likely come into play, but I would consider them as secondary to the state government. The superintendent, whether at the state or local level, may also factor into the school board conversation. Nevertheless, I believe that this is ultimately driven by the states.
Diane: I agree, Michael. And what’s interesting to note is that we can use the Common Core as a mini-case study to illustrate what we’ve been discussing. I don’t want to oversimplify, but essentially, a large number of state superintendents, along with various other stakeholders, spent several years collaborating to establish universal standards. They did this because the states hold considerable power in this realm, and they determine the outcomes. Hence, collaboration was necessary. One of their primary intentions, I believe, was to ensure that students in California, for example, would be learning similar things to those in Mississippi, Alabama, or Florida, allowing for smooth transitions across the country and promoting equity. However, when states adopted the Common Core and faced resistance from certain groups we previously mentioned, that collaborative effort started to crumble. Consequently, states began diverging in their own directions, erasing any common ground, because the states truly hold the power.
Michael: I agree with that assessment. And that’s precisely what I had in mind when mentioning the slight veto power that parents possess. I think their veto power is less significant than some perceive it to be, as many states simply rebranded the standards by making minor adjustments, distancing themselves from the Common Core. However, there is still a degree of veto power, although it’s not direct. I would categorize it similarly to what we discussed earlier. Nonetheless, it’s undeniable that the state government is where the decisions are truly made. For those following these matters closely, the Council of State School Officers played a crucial role in coordinating much of this effort. It was a multi-year endeavor even before it became a contentious topic in federal and nationwide conversations, which is likely the direction we will explore next.
Michael: We discussed this topic in our second episode of Class Disrupted, if I recall correctly.
Diane: Yes, and then there are influential committees that you mentioned earlier. We started talking about them, and from a historical standpoint, I find them fascinating. Not all committees, of course, but a select few have had significant power and influence. I also wanted to touch on the role of teachers because I believe they fit into this category as well, Michael.
Michael: Yes, I find this group interesting. I have the most questions about the feds. When you mentioned them at the top, it made me think about their power, specifically in the accountability system. They have prioritized English Language Arts and math above all else. Even in the debates about teacher evaluation systems and bonuses from 10 to 15 years ago. These were tied to these narrow subjects. This has solidified certain aspects of the system, but I’m not sure if they have a day-to-day impact on the actual standards in use.
I would like to hear your counterarguments. Did the implementation of Common Core standards, with Secretary Duncan’s emphasis on testing and adoption, lead to a revolt among states and parents? They may not have fully understood what Common Core was, but they opposed it because they perceived the federal government’s involvement. As a result, the implementation may not have been smooth, as we discussed earlier, but it did significantly alter its landscape. This makes me believe that the federal government has less power than commonly assumed. So, I don’t know if I would place them in the same category as the others. They seem like a unique case to me. I’m interested to hear your thoughts.
Diane: I find that intriguing. What strikes me is that they have less power than people believe. Many individuals in the country think that the federal government determines what children learn in schools. However, we both know that this is not entirely accurate. Despite the relatively small percentage of funding invested by the federal government in education and their emphasis on states’ rights, they have found creative ways to exert control over day-to-day activities in schools. From my experience, state standards influence teachers’ thinking and our actions in schools on a daily basis. The accountability and assessment system, which operates at the federal level and is used by states, becomes a significant factor in our work. This system narrows the curriculum to focus mainly on math, reading, language arts, and occasional science topics at specific grade levels. There are various strategies built around these assessments that drive many behaviors. Furthermore, states adopt this system for various purposes. Consequently, it becomes an infrastructure that hampers our ability to rethink and redesign education because everything revolves around accountability.
Michael: That’s interesting, and it leads well into the other entities in this category. Colleges and universities, in my opinion, have played a significant role in shaping the infrastructure. Similar to the federal government, they have influenced the Committee of 10 that we discussed earlier. This committee essentially determined the subjects taught in high school and how they are divided. As we mentioned before, there may be overarching themes, but the way we have fragmented and modularized these subjects is where we have gone astray. High school, and subsequently middle school, have largely followed the departmental structure found in colleges and universities.
Diane: I couldn’t agree more. My daily experience primarily revolves around high schools and middle schools, but I believe this issue extends even to elementary schools. The expectations and criteria set by colleges and universities for admission greatly influence what is taught, who it is taught to, and all aspects of education in high schools and middle schools. What’s interesting is that the majority of students aren’t necessarily aiming for these selective schools. It’s actually the selective schools that have a significant impact on our education system. So, in essence, a relatively small number of schools, maybe around 50 or even 100, are driving the entire K-12 system in the country, which I think hinders our ability to explore alternative options.
Furthermore, we have concerns about this because we don’t want to force children into pathways or tracks that they don’t desire and that aren’t beneficial for them. However, this kind of influence is quite limiting. It’s remarkable to me that this has been happening for a century. The Committee of 10, for example, was established a hundred years ago, and its influence is still profound in our current education system. We have been having the same debates for a hundred years.
Michael: Yes, I completely agree. One thing I want to add is that these 100 schools, or however many there are, not only hold power over the K-12 system but also over higher education. That’s why the higher education system is so rigid and resistant to change. The faculty members are trained for research and seek tenure, promotions, and the opportunity to teach and conduct research with the resources available at these selective schools. They need to align with the structure of these schools to be recognized within the system. This rigidity has a ripple effect and limits progress. I think you’re right, and this leads us to the influence of textbook companies, which, in my opinion, also fall into this category.
For instance, Larry Berger discussed textbook adoption on Class Disrupted, and he highlighted that many textbooks are not significantly different from those 50 years ago. So, when we make changes to standards or request different things, there may be minor revisions or additions, like incorporating a CD-ROM or a website, but the fundamental structure of the textbooks remains largely unchanged. Rarely do they completely rethink and revamp the content.
Diane: This is why I emphasize the role of parents. Let’s consider the Common Core as an example. Despite attempts to abandon it, textbooks continue to align with the Common Core, as well as the assessments for the national accountability system. People might think that Common Core has been eliminated, but it has simply been pushed into the background. Just to be clear, I personally believe in the Common Core standards, and I’m not advocating for their elimination. However, this example highlights the decision-making power and who truly holds it.
Michael: Yes, I agree. We’ve discussed influential committees, but I’m wondering if there’s anything else you would like to add. Lastly, there’s the role of teachers, which I believe is what you had in mind when you mentioned that they close the door and teach what they want. We often don’t know what goes on inside the classroom, and sometimes teachers dedicate significant effort to certain standards or units because of their passion, while other times they may not prioritize them as much. Their decision-making process lacks transparency in many cases. I’m curious if you have any thoughts on this.
Our task is to rephrase and enhance the text while maintaining natural English language. Here is the revised version:
It would empower us to create a curriculum and design learning experiences that can be continuously improved and collaboratively developed, allowing our children to have more impactful educational experiences. I express this sentiment with the utmost respect for teachers. As someone who has been a teacher for a long time, I know firsthand that it is impossible, regardless of one’s proficiency, to single-handedly create extraordinary learning experiences on a daily basis. Moreover, it is challenging to establish connections between these experiences and the previous and subsequent years, thus forming a cohesive learning trajectory. Therefore, it is crucial that we approach education as a collaborative effort. Redesigning and leveraging technology is, in my opinion, the only way to achieve this. However, one hurdle we must overcome is that teachers tend to be resistant to relinquishing their autonomy, as they value the control they have in their classrooms. This resistance becomes a roadblock for progress.
Michael: Absolutely. That’s why I strongly advocate for co-teaching and collaborative teaching models. As you mentioned, these approaches can alleviate some of the emotional reactions and enable us to explore exciting collaborative opportunities. Perhaps we can delve deeper into this topic in a future episode. But for now, let’s conclude. As we always do, could you share something you’re currently watching or reading, Diane?
Diane: I believe you might enjoy these recommendations, Michael. My husband and I have been actively seeking out positive, optimistic, and uplifting content as each day can be a bit challenging. We stumbled upon a couple of musicals that are now available on television. It seems to be a popular trend. We watched "In the Heights" and "Come From Away".
Michael: They were absolutely incredible.
Diane: The productions were filled with joy, fun, and carried important and powerful messages.
Michael: Yes, they were deeply meaningful. Now, I have a more whimsical suggestion compared to yours. When my wife and I were first dating, and I was constantly traveling, we used to watch episodes of Chuck. It was an NBC show about a guy who had been expelled from Stanford but had a computer implanted in his brain and was working for the CIA. The show was a mix of comedy, spy thriller, and pure whimsy. We have been rewatching all the episodes and find ourselves completely addicted every evening. It serves as a means of escape at the end of the day, transporting us back to a different era in many ways. Well, we’ll leave it at that. People can interpret it as they wish.
But until then, thank you for joining us on Class Disrupted.
Michael Horn is a renowned author of several books on the future of learning, including Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. He collaborates with a variety of organizations to drive educational transformation, enabling individuals to pursue their passions and reach their full potential.
Diane Tavenner serves as the CEO of Summit Public Schools and is a co-founder of the Summit Learning Program. With a lifelong dedication to education and innovation, she is the author of Prepared: What Kids Need for a Fulfilled Life.
Related: Stay updated with stories like these delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for Newsletter.