Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (2006). The Knowledge Deficit. Reviewed by Andrew J. Rotherham

Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (2006). The Knowledge Deficit. NY, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. 192         ISBN-13/EAN 9780618657315 Reviewed by Andrew J. Rotherham Education Sector April 3, 2007 E.D. Hirsch is an unlikely combatant in the culture wars. A slightly awkward man with a quick smile and insatiable curiosity, he used to be best known in academic circles, as literary critic and author of two noteworthy books about the poets Blake and Wordsworth. For a time, he was also a leading scholar of hermeneutics, the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural texts. But more recently the University of Virginia English professor, founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation and author of over a half dozen influential books on education reform, has become a lightening rod nationally and within the educational establishment. Hirsch, Harvard professor Howard Gardner said in 1997, "has swallowed a neoconservative caricature of contemporary American education. If this kind of angry, stereotypical thinking is what results from a 'core knowledge' orientation, then I want no part of it." Hirsch’s basic premise, laid out most clearly in his most recent book The Knowledge Deficit, is so straightforward that observers outside of education are often surprised at the uproar he sparks. Most school curricula are, according to Hirsch, vacuous and disjointed. Hirsch believes that knowledge acquisition is a deliberate process, requiring curriculum that emphasizes content rather than process and it must be organized around systemic rather than random acquisition of knowledge. Obvious? Well, this is a fundamental dispute in education circles because, as Hirsch discusses in Knowledge Deficit, much of American educational theory is predicated on 19th-century romantic ideas that celebrate learning and the acquisition of knowledge as a natural process. Where reading is concerned, Hirsch is especially vehement that lack of attention to curriculum is hamstringing efforts to improve literacy. Hirsch does not just talk about these issues in the abstract. His Core Knowledge Foundation provides a specific, and consequently controversial, curriculum that is used in many public schools and is especially popular among public charter schools. The Core Knowledge curriculum unabashedly champions facts and content even in the earliest grades. Rather than the catch as catch can approach to curriculum that still characterizes much of American education, Core Knowledge makes clear the specific body of knowledge that students should master as they progress through school. Whether a specific body of knowledge is necessary for "cultural literacy" is, of course, not just an educational issue. Hirsch has argued, first in his nationally bestselling book Cultural Literacy and later in The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them, that a common body of knowledge and cultural understanding is one of the things that unites us as Americans. Not surprisingly this has led multi-culturists to attack Hirsch for what they perceive as an assault on liberal values in education. It is an irony that bewilders Hirsch because what he is espousing is in fact a profoundly liberal and egalitarian notion. Hirsch's core idea is that shared knowledge is the ticket to democratic inclusion and participation, in other words, a key strategy for expanding opportunity. How, he wonders, can people actively participate in a society without understanding its underpinnings, history, and shared culture? In other words, an inclusive society cannot eschew common cultural capital but must embrace it. A lifelong Democrat, Hirsch is particularly irritated at continually being dubbed a conservative by the educational establishment. (A noteworthy exception is the American Federation of Teachers, which nationally has long embraced Hirsch's core tenets about curriculum and aggressively promoted this book.) In practice, Hirsch's Core Knowledge curriculum and Core Knowledge schools are not paeans to dead white guys or purely focused on the American experience. Core Knowledge emphasizes that students must understand world history, cultures, and religions. In fact, Core Knowledge students are more likely to get real exposure to multiculturalism than the average student. That is because while multiculturalism is often distilled to a "food and fiesta" approach emphasizing superficialities, Core Knowledge emphasizes substantive learning about different cultures and peoples. Nor is Core Knowledge teacher-centered rote pedagogy, and in practice, Core Knowledge schools vary in their instructional methods. It is a curriculum rather than an instructional approach and Hirsch is quick to point out that teachers must engage students in the learning process. What he is unapologetic about, however, is that doing so means giving them content to engage with. Because content or "mere facts" are often derided in education, Hirsch frequently is accused of not caring about critical thinking. Yet he makes no apologies for believing that "mere facts," are actually not "mere." Interestingly, Core Knowledge schools tend to do well on standardized tests even though they often do not follow state standards or "teach to the test." It is unfortunate that in Knowledge Deficit, Hirsch does not thoroughly delve into data and examples upending the common perception that a content rich curriculum somehow interferes with students performing well on standardized tests or is synonymous with "drill and kill" approaches to teaching. Parents today are understandably frustrated and impatient with schools that, for whatever reason, dumb down curriculum. Yet right now that angst is being channeled into attacks on policies aimed at increasing content and rigor such as No Child Left Behind. Showing parents that schools can teach students more and be more engaging at the same time would help create a more hospitable political climate for school improvement. Hirsch's analysis has important implications for several ongoing debates about improving schools. For instance, education policy today is focusing on how to attract higher quality teachers to schools. Pointing to evidence from other countries, Hirsch argues that this emphasis is somewhat misplaced. Even the best teachers cannot overcome the enormous variance in student preparation created by uneven curriculum he says. Consequently, as a labor market issue, Hirsch believes better curriculum can in fact be delivered by more "average" teachers and produce better results than a teacher corps of more widely varying high and low quality teachers and no set curriculum. Similarly, Knowledge Deficit raises some tough questions for supporters of expanding school choice. If some of our educational problems are related to curricular incoherence, then what sort of curricular or outcome standards should policymakers seek to apply to schools receiving public funding? In a true school choice plan a student could move from a Montessori school one year, to a Core Knowledge school the next, and then on to an Afro-centric school the third. In fact, Hirsch's work is a subtle but devastating critique of the ideas of unfettered school choice that are, for different reasons, popular on the political right and left. Hirsch's analysis raises difficult questions about whether and how curricular coherence can be linked with the growing parental demand for more educational customization in a way that furthers both goals. That question has implications extending beyond just school choice. Even if we know that a specific curriculum does produce better learning outcomes for students, should government mandate it for all students in public schools? Another political tradition in this country, codified by the Supreme Court in 1925, is one of liberalism about allowing parents to choose different educational options, for instance, parochial or home schools for their children. Increasingly, however, these choices are being supported with public dollars, through school vouchers and educational tax credits. This, too, is setting up an inevitable collision between parental choice and publicly defined curricular standards. Right now the default position is to give states control of these decisions and Hirsch discusses the problems with and myths about local control in Knowledge Deficit. He points out that despite America's fetishizing of local control in education, it is the huge national textbook companies that wield disproportionate influence, not local school boards. Hirsch turns conservative and liberal concerns about indoctrination in public schools on their head arguing that a defined, transparent, and public curriculum is actually the best guard against various ideological agendas. However he fails to wrestle with the fundamental dilemma about just how far one wants government to go in setting curriculum in a country like ours. He sees the answer as a straightforward one, but one can agree with him on the larger issues he raises, see the value in the sort of curriculum he champions, and still be reticent about seeing government mandate it, especially the federal government. As a national matter, subjects like math and reading do lend themselves to more coherent national standards. Math and reading are the same in Florida and Arizona. Yet while the rules of science are not different in Tallahassee or Tucson, the emphasis that parents and community members want to see in science classes may vary widely. Scientific issues that might engage a student in the Pacific Northwest will likely be alien to a student in the New Mexico desert. And, even leaving aside hot button issues like the Civil War, it is hard to see a national consensus around issues like history. The great strength of America and a basic riddle of American education is that though some things unite us we are ultimately a heterogeneous country, more so than many of the countries we are often educationally compared with. As a practical matter, like most supporters of more centralized or national curriculum, Hirsch offers no political roadmap through the tremendous political opposition to the idea on the political right and left. Despite the stereotypes, rather than seeking to foist a conservative curriculum on the schools, most Republicans are uncomfortable with curricular mandates. Their reticence to trample the sacred principle of "local control" renders them somewhat useless in this debate. Democrats, for their part, too often embrace what education analyst Frederick Hess calls the politics of "inclusive ambiguity" and refuse to make hard decisions about curriculum resulting in vague standards that are often of little utility for teachers. And, in the wake of No Child Left Behind which added teeth to accompany federal education dollars, some Democrats now sound more Federalist Society than Great Society. Politicians of all stripes tend to see curriculum as a problem more often affecting poor schools and low income youngsters. But the patchwork curriculum actually exists in all kinds of schools exacerbating broader problems with reading instruction and academic achievement. In terms of social and cultural capital, however, there is little doubt that good public schools are much more vital to the success of low-income youngsters than affluent ones. Unfortunately right now it is poor youngsters who are least likely to benefit from public education Yet more curricular coherence has benefits for students in all kinds of communities. That is why rather than castigating No Child Left Behind, which though it does not specify curriculum does hold schools accountable for academic results, liberals should see it as a chance to establish some minimum benchmarks about the sort of opportunities low-income students should enjoy. One unified curriculum may be an untenable answer politically and undesirable on merits. However, policies that encourage, even indirectly as NCLB does, attention to content and curricular coherence are vital equity tools. But because Hirsch has put his finger on a generalized problem, not just one affecting poor youngsters, this need not just be a poor child issue. In fact, as a political matter, Democrats could go a long way toward recapturing their heritage as champions of expanding opportunity by telling people the truth: When it comes to curriculum, what's good for America's poor kids is actually good for all Americans. In Knowledge Deficit Hirsch presents a powerful case about why. About the Reviewer Andrew J. Rotherham is co-director of Education Sector and author of the blog, Eduwonk.com. He also serves on the Virginia Board of Education.