I ran into this quote in Engines for Education by Schank and Cleary1995 Lawrence Erlbaum
Can you see how it relates to task analysis?

It’s been a favorite hobby of educators over the years to churn out extensive lists that supposedly provide the definitive answer to the questions, “What should an educated person know?” If you know everything on the list, the idea goes, you are well educated. School-age children have good reason to fear such lists.
…One of the most famous of such lists was produced between 1915 and 1919 by the Committee on Economy of Time in Education, a committee of the National Education Associate (NEA). This group performed an extensive study of the activities people engage in on an everyday basis and tried to isolate what knowledge they need to effectively perform those activities. The list that resulted filled a staggering eight volumes of things one should know.
This NEA effort was based on a seemingly right-headed idea: Look at the things adults do, then teach children what they need to know to do the same things. At the heart of this effort was the idea that teaching children the things that tie into their everyday experiences and interests will help with what they will want to do. But the committee made a basic mistake. Instead of producing a guide that could help different children pursue different interests, the committee instead produced a uniform list dictating what was necessary for all children to know.
Literacy lists inevitably harm educational efforts. They take control away from teachers and students and cede it to distant authorities. The more detailed such lists are, the more harm they do. The longer these lists grow, the more teachers need to rush through the items and teach to the test, and the likelihood decreases that teachers or children will be allowed to think for themselves in the classroom.

[E.D. Hirsch is editor of a series of books on cultural literacy.. lists of what you should know]
Among other things, according to Hirsch, your first grader needs to know the following Indian myth about why owls have big eyes:
[the story is written]
…Now this is certainly an interesting story, and it can be used to draw out a number of useful lessons. But the advocates of the Cultural Literacy movement do not propose it as an example that might be used to illustrate some potentially useful points. They do not claim that it might be useful for a child to learn such lessons in some way. Rather, they claim that the be “culturally literate” every American child should know this specific story. They are not concerned with making sure the child understands why this is a potentially useful story. They are not concerned with making sure the child can do something with the story. They only want the child to be exposed to the story, to absorb its “facts.”
In addition to “Why the Owl Has Big Eyes,” there is “Puss-in-Boots” and “the Princess and the Pea” among the other 20 stories Hirsch presents as necessary reading. Or you have a choice of one of the 42 rhymes, 13 sayings, or 13 myths and fables also advocated by Hirsch.