Educators are often overlooked in the decision-making processes about how students learn due to several systemic and cultural factors within the education system. One major reason is the increasing centralization of educational policies, where decisions are frequently made by administrators, policymakers, and external experts rather than by classroom teachers themselves. This top-down approach can marginalize educators, even though they possess firsthand knowledge of their students’ needs and learning styles. The disconnect between policy makers and teachers leads to decisions that may not fully reflect the realities of classroom dynamics or the diverse ways students engage with learning.

Additionally, the prevailing emphasis on standardized testing and measurable outcomes tends to prioritize data and accountability metrics over the nuanced understanding educators have about student development. This focus can diminish the value placed on teachers’ professional judgment and experiential insights, reducing their role to mere implementers of external mandates rather than active contributors to pedagogical innovation. As a result, educators may feel disempowered or ignored in shaping curricula or instructional strategies, despite their critical role in actualizing student learning.

Cultural expectations and hierarchical structures within schools also contribute to this exclusion. Often, decision-making bodies are composed of administrators or external consultants who are perceived as having greater expertise or authority, overshadowing the voices of teachers. This dynamic can be particularly pronounced where educational systems emphasize compliance and uniformity, rather than encouraging collaborative or constructivist approaches that would naturally involve educators in meaningful dialogue about teaching and learning processes.

Furthermore, the disconnect is compounded when education systems fail to integrate culturally responsive pedagogy and the diverse experiences educators bring, especially in contexts where inclusivity and relevance in learning are crucial. Ignoring educators’ perspectives risks missing opportunities to tailor education to students’ cultural backgrounds and learning needs, which can lead to disengagement and ineffective instruction.

In essence, the marginalization of educators in decision-making about students arises from a combination of centralized policy control, an overemphasis on standardized metrics, hierarchical school structures, and a lack of genuine collaboration. Addressing these issues by valuing teachers’ expertise, involving them in shaping educational practices, and fostering inclusive, reflective decision-making can lead to more responsive and effective learning experiences for students.

It’s almost as if we’ve decided that educators, the ones who actually know how students learn, should sit this one out and let the “experts” in conference rooms handle it. It’s like letting the chef pick the ingredients for a new dish, but then asking the interior designer to decide how the food should be plated. Sure, the designer has a great sense of style, but the chef knows what won’t end up as a burnt disaster. Educators are the frontline soldiers in the classroom trenches, armed with patience, wisdom, and the occasional cup of coffee, yet they're told, "Thanks for the input, but we'll handle the big decisions from here!" It’s high time we realize that if we want students to learn effectively, the best people to ask might just be those who are teaching them every day.

It remains a viewpoint I respect, but the role of experts is to train educators through their professional expertise. In this way, the educator is equipped with the qualifications needed to excel in performing their duties, instead of starting from scratch and risking the loss of generations. This is the importance of training design.

In fact, I agree with you, especially when it comes to Arab educational systems, where dominant models are often copied without taking into account the needs of the educational community members. As a result, the outcome is school diplomas without actual academic achievement.

Education is stuck in unexamined archaic narratives that continue to drive the way things are done. Historically, educators, particularly K-12 teachers, have never been invited to sit at tables where real policy decisions were being made. Some of this, frankly, is rooted in misogyny. Quite early in the development of public education in the US, females were recruited because they were cheaper than hiring males. Young women were willing to take these low paying jobs because it was one of the few alternatives to at the time to marriage and becoming a "housemaker." Teaching wasn't actually considered a professional job; it came with low respect, low status, and low pay. Meanwhile, there was a narrative of teaching as a kind of philanthropic vocation or a romantic calling rather than a serious profession. The mission of teachers in these common schools (as they were called) was to nurture moral character first, teach basic civics, and sort (male) students who would go on to become doctors and lawyers. The rest would drop out to work in factories or help on the farm. Many of these female teachers had no more than an 8th grade education themselves. These teachers were not seen as capable of deciding education policy. Although times and circumstances have changed, policy-makers are still running on the same unxamined assumptions about teachers that were at play during the formation of public education in the 19th century.

In my country’s educational system, teachers are not excluded from the decision-making process regarding teaching methods. This is achieved through holding seminars at the grassroots level, that is, with teachers themselves. These discussions are then reviewed at the level of educational inspectorates, and subsequently, the ministry adopts the recommendations without compromising the fundamentals and goals of the educational system. Moreover, the competency-based approach allows teachers to choose the appropriate teaching method.

It is clearly stated in education policies and guidelines that teachers should be actively involved in decision-making processes such as strategic planning, school improvement planning (SIP), curriculum review, and the development of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students with special needs. However, in practice, many administrators or principals fail to include teachers in these critical areas. Common reasons include the belief that deliberating with teachers takes too much time, the assumption that no academic issues are present, decisions being made without teacher consultation, and efforts to maintain a positive public image of school performance (whitewashing). Unfortunately, this exclusion hinders the resolution of real classroom challenges. When teachers’ insights are overlooked, the root causes of problems remain unaddressed, making issues more complex and persistent.

Interesting question and replies.

To be honest, I believe that educators can participate, maybe indirectly.

For instance in my home country, Greece, there is a hierarchy. Educators are in contact with consultants and regional directors of education services. They can express and ideas, complains, experience to consultants and directors. These, in turn are in contact with national authories and can forward any experience of educators to these authorities.

Morever, educators participate in research projects, which are disseminated and taken into consideration during decision making.

I assume though that something similar happens in most countries.

Obviously, there are challenges in this system.

The exclusion of educators from crucial decisions about student learning is a complex issue rooted in several interconnected factors, hindering effective educational practices. One primary reason lies in the hierarchical structures prevalent in many educational systems. Administrators, policymakers, and even standardized testing companies often prioritize top-down directives, viewing teachers primarily as implementers of pre-determined curricula and assessment methods (Darling-Hammond, 2010). This approach undervalues the rich, nuanced understanding teachers possess of their students’ individual needs and learning styles, garnered through daily classroom interaction.

Furthermore, a persistent gap exists between research and practice. While educational research provides valuable insights into effective teaching methods, translating these findings into practical classroom applications often lacks the necessary teacher input (Fullan, 2013). Policymakers frequently base decisions on large-scale data and generalized findings, neglecting the unique contextual factors within individual schools and classrooms that teachers intimately understand. This disconnect leads to policies that are ill-suited to the realities of daily teaching.

Additionally, time constraints and a lack of professional development opportunities often prevent teachers from actively participating in decision-making processes. The demands of lesson planning, grading, and parent communication leave little time for collaborative planning or engagement in policy discussions. Investing in teacher leadership roles and providing dedicated time for collaboration could significantly improve this.

Ultimately, ignoring educators' expertise undermines the very foundation of effective teaching and learning. Meaningful teacher involvement in decision-making is not merely desirable; it’s essential for creating responsive, effective, and equitable educational systems.

Citations:

- Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine its future. New York: Teachers College Press.

- Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pearson.

Educators are often excluded from decision-making on student learning due to top-down policy structures, bureaucratic inertia, or a lack of trust in practitioner insights, despite their frontline experience being crucial for effective and context-relevant educational reform.