What do you think?
Rate this book
The Schools We Need: And Why We Don't Have Them
This paperback edition, with a new introduction, offers a powerful, compelling, and unassailable argument for reforming America's schooling methods and ideas--by one of America's most important educators, and author of the bestselling Cultural Literacy .
For over fifty years, American schools have operated under the assumption that challenging children academically is unnatural for them, that teachers do not need to know the subjects they teach, that the learning "process" should be emphasized over the facts taught. All of this is tragically wrong.
Renowned educator and author E. D. Hirsch, Jr., argues that, by disdaining content-based curricula while favoring abstract--and discredited--theories of how a child learns, the ideas uniformly taught by our schools have done terrible harm to America's students. Instead of preparing our children for the highly competitive, information-based economy in which we now live, our schools' practices have severely curtailed their ability, and desire, to learn.
With an introduction that surveys developments in education since the hardcover edition was published, The Schools We Need is a passionate and thoughtful book that will appeal to the millions of people who can't understand why America's schools aren't educating our children.
For over fifty years, American schools have operated under the assumption that challenging children academically is unnatural for them, that teachers do not need to know the subjects they teach, that the learning "process" should be emphasized over the facts taught. All of this is tragically wrong.
Renowned educator and author E. D. Hirsch, Jr., argues that, by disdaining content-based curricula while favoring abstract--and discredited--theories of how a child learns, the ideas uniformly taught by our schools have done terrible harm to America's students. Instead of preparing our children for the highly competitive, information-based economy in which we now live, our schools' practices have severely curtailed their ability, and desire, to learn.
With an introduction that surveys developments in education since the hardcover edition was published, The Schools We Need is a passionate and thoughtful book that will appeal to the millions of people who can't understand why America's schools aren't educating our children.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
About the author
E.D. Hirsch Jr.
112 books116 followersE. D. Hirsch, Jr. is the founder and chairman of the Core Knowledge Foundation and professor emeritus of education and humanities at the University of Virginia. He is the author of several acclaimed books on education in which he has persisted as a voice of reason making the case for equality of educational opportunity.
A highly regarded literary critic and professor of English earlier in his career, Dr. Hirsch recalls being “shocked into education reform” while doing research on written composition at a pair of colleges in Virginia. During these studies he observed that a student’s ability to comprehend a passage was determined in part by the relative readability of the text, but even more by the student’s background knowledge.
This research led Dr. Hirsch to develop his concept of cultural literacy—the idea that reading comprehension requires not just formal decoding skills but also wide-ranging background knowledge. In 1986 he founded the Core Knowledge Foundation. A year later he published Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, which remained at the top of the New York Times bestseller list for more than six months. His subsequent books include The Schools We Need, The Knowledge Deficit, The Making of Americans, and most recently, How to Educate a Citizen: The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation.
In How to Educate a Citizen (September, 2020), E.D. Hirsch continues the conversation he began thirty years ago with his classic bestseller Cultural Literacy, urging America’s public schools, particularly in Preschool – Grade 8, to educate our children using common, coherent and sequenced curricula to help heal and preserve the nation.
A highly regarded literary critic and professor of English earlier in his career, Dr. Hirsch recalls being “shocked into education reform” while doing research on written composition at a pair of colleges in Virginia. During these studies he observed that a student’s ability to comprehend a passage was determined in part by the relative readability of the text, but even more by the student’s background knowledge.
This research led Dr. Hirsch to develop his concept of cultural literacy—the idea that reading comprehension requires not just formal decoding skills but also wide-ranging background knowledge. In 1986 he founded the Core Knowledge Foundation. A year later he published Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, which remained at the top of the New York Times bestseller list for more than six months. His subsequent books include The Schools We Need, The Knowledge Deficit, The Making of Americans, and most recently, How to Educate a Citizen: The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation.
In How to Educate a Citizen (September, 2020), E.D. Hirsch continues the conversation he began thirty years ago with his classic bestseller Cultural Literacy, urging America’s public schools, particularly in Preschool – Grade 8, to educate our children using common, coherent and sequenced curricula to help heal and preserve the nation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
January 21, 2008
If there is one thing that American educators I have known love to do (other than share stories about their time in the trenches), it is to complain about the state of education in America. And we are not without any basis for our complaints. I teach at a community college, and I am a product of a California public high school. I know first hand how unprepared many students (a disproportionate amount of them from disadvantaged groups) are to do college level work after graduating from public schools. I have students that come to me unprepared in terms of attitude, experience, and content. Every class I teach, I have students (NOT older students or students who are attending school in the US for the first time, but students who I am sure graduated from high school here) who tell me that their greatest accomplishment in my class was that they actually turned in all of their assignments on time and completed all of their work. It is mind boggling.
With all of these thoughts running through my head, I ran across The Schools We Need sitting out on my mother's bookshelf over Christmas Break. I was slightly familiar with Hirsch's ideas about cultural literacy and content-based education. By "familiar," I mean that when I was in... was it the fourth grade? It must have been... Anyway, when I was in my late elementary school years, my father got his hands on some version of The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, which Mr. Hirsch edited, and had me read him entries while he drove me to school in his late 60's model Bronco.
This book charges that the reason that so many American schools are failing is that the classroom methodology currently in favor is both ineffective. The methods that Hirsch is so up in arms about include "Whole language," "discovery learning," and other progressive-sounding practices. He shows how these practices grow out of a Romantic view of education as a natural process that should happen smoothly and without effort. To sum up a great many of the ideas he argues against, children should be allowed to discover knowledge for themselves because they will remember such discovered knowledge at a much greater rate than information that is imparted to them by their teachers. Hirsch's argument against this particular group of ideas is that the accumulation of the knowledge that a child needs in order to function at a high level in society is not a natural process. It may be made more interesting or boring depending upon the competency of the teacher, but no child is going to naturally pick up the broad spectrum of general knowledge in which lower-grade schooling purports to give its students a grounding. In a perfect world, every child would be at least marginally interested in learning a little bit about every subject for learning's sake, but this is not a perfect world, and if we are going to produce halfway competent students, there must be some outside incentive for students to learn and master the material being taught, and the teaching of that material is necessarily going to involve a great deal of listening and practice on the student's part. (Don't even get me started on the whole "Grades hurt students' self esteem" nonsense.)
The second trend that Hirsch is concerned about is the undue emphasis based on "accessing skills" and "metacognitive skills" over subject matter. This approach assumes that students only need to be taught how to access information, rather than being forced to learn and internalize a set of unconnected facts (which is not what good subject matter instruction does, but that is beside the point). It also assumes that skills like critical thinking can be taught once and applied to multiple situations. In response to these ideas, Hirsch argues that accessing skills without content-related knowledge are of little use (how can a student sort out good information from bad without some background knowledge in the subject? For a humorous example, I point you to the site warning us all about the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide. ) and that critical thinking skills cannot be applied to situations in which a student has little background. For instance, if I gave my students an essay about an unfamiliar topic and told them to "think critically" about it, or to "consider both sides of the issue," they would probably be unable to do very much with it. Let's say I tell them, "Think critically about the problem of illegal immigration." In order for them to do a decent job of this, they're probably going to need to know a bit about economics, a bit about the history of immigration in the US, a bit about nationalism, a bit about politics, a bit about the relationship between Mexico/Latin America and the United States... and the list goes on. This is not to say that a person without a strong grounding in these subjects can't have valid insights based on personal experience or observation, but in order to really analyze the problem, a student is going to need some basic knowledge in the areas I've just listed.
To reverse this trend, Hirsch suggests that schools in any successful national system need to have content-based standards for each grade level. By "content-based," he means that a standard would list a specific set of knowledge that each child would acquire in each grade. This seems to make an immense amount of sense to me. I have seen lists of standards that have been so vague as to be completely useless. However, the point of the book isn't to outline his content-based standards system. It is more to show the difference between his ideas and a great deal of current educational thinking. There are apparently those who would disparage content-based teaching because it presents information in a compartmentalized, isolated fashion, and that students will never learn how all of it is connected, and they'll be nothing more than little parrots giving the teachers back what they want to hear. Of course this is not the goal of teaching children facts. Of course it is assumed that the child will also be learning how the pieces of knowledge he or she is learning are interconnected and how to synthesize and analyze them. As I read, it seemed as if Hirsch felt he needed to defend content-based learning from those who think that learning "mere facts" is useless. This isn't an attitude I've ever come across in any of my educational experiences, but then again, I grew up in a very traditional, conservative area of California. I was fortunate enough to have teachers who taught content and made the process of learning interesting enough that I enjoyed it, even in subjects where I was not "naturally" inclined, such as science and math. I have to wonder how wide-spread it has been elsewhere, though...
The consequences of not having a great deal of content taught in schools, especially at an early age, is staggering, but it is especially detrimental to students who come from economically or socially disadvantaged homes. Hirsch writes (and I am inclined to agree with him) that students from educated homes will pick up the content knowledge they need from their parents if they are not getting it at school. However, students who have no other source of "intellectual capital" (the knowledge needed to function at a high level in public discourse) are left behind, and traditionally, these are students from disadvantaged homes. So the ones who are most hurt by "naturalistic" methodologies are the ones who are the least likely to make up for gaps in their learning elsewhere.
Some people may call Hirsch a reactionary, but I tend to agree with him. His arguments about the cumulative nature of learning are very compelling, and my own experiences as a student and as a teacher tend to bear him out, especially when I am teaching objectively measurable skills like writing. I have found that a mixture of lecture, whole-class instruction, and guided practice gets much better results than letting students "discover" the rules for themselves ever would. In fact, I shudder at the thought of uninformed students "discovering" grammar rules about comma placement, pronoun usage, or any of the other more complicated things I get to teach. Sometimes, just presenting students with the information in an organized fashion really does work, surprising as that may sound.
With all of these thoughts running through my head, I ran across The Schools We Need sitting out on my mother's bookshelf over Christmas Break. I was slightly familiar with Hirsch's ideas about cultural literacy and content-based education. By "familiar," I mean that when I was in... was it the fourth grade? It must have been... Anyway, when I was in my late elementary school years, my father got his hands on some version of The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, which Mr. Hirsch edited, and had me read him entries while he drove me to school in his late 60's model Bronco.
This book charges that the reason that so many American schools are failing is that the classroom methodology currently in favor is both ineffective. The methods that Hirsch is so up in arms about include "Whole language," "discovery learning," and other progressive-sounding practices. He shows how these practices grow out of a Romantic view of education as a natural process that should happen smoothly and without effort. To sum up a great many of the ideas he argues against, children should be allowed to discover knowledge for themselves because they will remember such discovered knowledge at a much greater rate than information that is imparted to them by their teachers. Hirsch's argument against this particular group of ideas is that the accumulation of the knowledge that a child needs in order to function at a high level in society is not a natural process. It may be made more interesting or boring depending upon the competency of the teacher, but no child is going to naturally pick up the broad spectrum of general knowledge in which lower-grade schooling purports to give its students a grounding. In a perfect world, every child would be at least marginally interested in learning a little bit about every subject for learning's sake, but this is not a perfect world, and if we are going to produce halfway competent students, there must be some outside incentive for students to learn and master the material being taught, and the teaching of that material is necessarily going to involve a great deal of listening and practice on the student's part. (Don't even get me started on the whole "Grades hurt students' self esteem" nonsense.)
The second trend that Hirsch is concerned about is the undue emphasis based on "accessing skills" and "metacognitive skills" over subject matter. This approach assumes that students only need to be taught how to access information, rather than being forced to learn and internalize a set of unconnected facts (which is not what good subject matter instruction does, but that is beside the point). It also assumes that skills like critical thinking can be taught once and applied to multiple situations. In response to these ideas, Hirsch argues that accessing skills without content-related knowledge are of little use (how can a student sort out good information from bad without some background knowledge in the subject? For a humorous example, I point you to the site warning us all about the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide. ) and that critical thinking skills cannot be applied to situations in which a student has little background. For instance, if I gave my students an essay about an unfamiliar topic and told them to "think critically" about it, or to "consider both sides of the issue," they would probably be unable to do very much with it. Let's say I tell them, "Think critically about the problem of illegal immigration." In order for them to do a decent job of this, they're probably going to need to know a bit about economics, a bit about the history of immigration in the US, a bit about nationalism, a bit about politics, a bit about the relationship between Mexico/Latin America and the United States... and the list goes on. This is not to say that a person without a strong grounding in these subjects can't have valid insights based on personal experience or observation, but in order to really analyze the problem, a student is going to need some basic knowledge in the areas I've just listed.
To reverse this trend, Hirsch suggests that schools in any successful national system need to have content-based standards for each grade level. By "content-based," he means that a standard would list a specific set of knowledge that each child would acquire in each grade. This seems to make an immense amount of sense to me. I have seen lists of standards that have been so vague as to be completely useless. However, the point of the book isn't to outline his content-based standards system. It is more to show the difference between his ideas and a great deal of current educational thinking. There are apparently those who would disparage content-based teaching because it presents information in a compartmentalized, isolated fashion, and that students will never learn how all of it is connected, and they'll be nothing more than little parrots giving the teachers back what they want to hear. Of course this is not the goal of teaching children facts. Of course it is assumed that the child will also be learning how the pieces of knowledge he or she is learning are interconnected and how to synthesize and analyze them. As I read, it seemed as if Hirsch felt he needed to defend content-based learning from those who think that learning "mere facts" is useless. This isn't an attitude I've ever come across in any of my educational experiences, but then again, I grew up in a very traditional, conservative area of California. I was fortunate enough to have teachers who taught content and made the process of learning interesting enough that I enjoyed it, even in subjects where I was not "naturally" inclined, such as science and math. I have to wonder how wide-spread it has been elsewhere, though...
The consequences of not having a great deal of content taught in schools, especially at an early age, is staggering, but it is especially detrimental to students who come from economically or socially disadvantaged homes. Hirsch writes (and I am inclined to agree with him) that students from educated homes will pick up the content knowledge they need from their parents if they are not getting it at school. However, students who have no other source of "intellectual capital" (the knowledge needed to function at a high level in public discourse) are left behind, and traditionally, these are students from disadvantaged homes. So the ones who are most hurt by "naturalistic" methodologies are the ones who are the least likely to make up for gaps in their learning elsewhere.
Some people may call Hirsch a reactionary, but I tend to agree with him. His arguments about the cumulative nature of learning are very compelling, and my own experiences as a student and as a teacher tend to bear him out, especially when I am teaching objectively measurable skills like writing. I have found that a mixture of lecture, whole-class instruction, and guided practice gets much better results than letting students "discover" the rules for themselves ever would. In fact, I shudder at the thought of uninformed students "discovering" grammar rules about comma placement, pronoun usage, or any of the other more complicated things I get to teach. Sometimes, just presenting students with the information in an organized fashion really does work, surprising as that may sound.
July 4, 2008
Powerful and enlightening. I have always felt like our schools were getting worse, not better but never understood why. I would read tests given to 3rd graders in the early part of this century and laugh because high school students today couldn't even answer many of the questions. Dr. Hirsch explains the change in the educational culture, starting in the 1920s, that has resulted in our intellectual decline. Though not an easy read like a novel, definitely worth the time investment. I highly recommend it.
August 21, 2009
This book was a wonderful read as I had been wondering why the educational theorists could not meet halfway. Why people just don't do what is working? This book explained alot. I did not always agree but I don't read to agree. I read to be challenged and to think.
August 7, 2009
A must read for those in elementary and secondary education; but it is is a bit dry. But stick with it. Lots of research, statistics adn facts to support arguments. Despite unpopularity, the author's criticisms of 'progressive' education is founded on a commitment to our youth and our future. One of many underlying premises of book:
" ...those who are well educated can make money without inherited wealth but those who lack intellectual capital are left poor indeed. ... Those children who possess intellectual capital when they first arrive at school have the mental scaffolding and velcro to catch hold of what is going on and turn that knowledge into more intellectual capital. But those who arrive at school lacking the relevant experience and vocabulary, they see not, neither do they understand. They fall further and further behind. The relentless humiliations they experience continue to deplete their energies and motivation to learn. Lack of stimulation has depressed their IQ's. The ever increasing differential in acquired intellectual capital that occurs during the early years ends up creating a permanent gap . . . In short, an early inequity in the distribution of intellectual capital may be the single most important source of avoidable injustice in a free society."
Can I get an amen? He then goes on advocate an old school approach tempered with modern research and modifications for how to achieve a general cultural literacy that is currently missing.
" ...those who are well educated can make money without inherited wealth but those who lack intellectual capital are left poor indeed. ... Those children who possess intellectual capital when they first arrive at school have the mental scaffolding and velcro to catch hold of what is going on and turn that knowledge into more intellectual capital. But those who arrive at school lacking the relevant experience and vocabulary, they see not, neither do they understand. They fall further and further behind. The relentless humiliations they experience continue to deplete their energies and motivation to learn. Lack of stimulation has depressed their IQ's. The ever increasing differential in acquired intellectual capital that occurs during the early years ends up creating a permanent gap . . . In short, an early inequity in the distribution of intellectual capital may be the single most important source of avoidable injustice in a free society."
Can I get an amen? He then goes on advocate an old school approach tempered with modern research and modifications for how to achieve a general cultural literacy that is currently missing.
December 18, 2007
One star is generous. Hirsch's weak attach of progressivism suggests the movement is the fault of one individual (Kirkpatrick) and one institution (TC), suggests that higher order and lower order skills are only taught in isolation from one another, and completely neglects to address the social context of schools as institutions. Too bad he's a decent writer. I liken him to Diane Ravitch--THIS is what's wrong with the current (popular) discourse around educational change today!
August 7, 2014
Required reading for anyone who cares about education, children, or the betterment of America. The fact that this book is necessary, which uses history, logic, and countless studies to explain what should be common sense, is regrettable, but it is necessary nonetheless.
May 22, 2026
I don't usually write long reviews but this book and the goodreads reviews of it are all so baffling to me that I have to try and process it now that I'm done.
This book was recommended to me by a Youtuber who is a homeschool mom that I actually don't follow anymore due to always feeling "less than" and negative after watching her videos. She's clearly putting a ton of thought and effort into prioritizing her kids' academics so kudos to her. I decided to check out this book thinking it was going to be one thing and now I'm not sure if I totally misunderstood the book or she did or her beliefs are totally different than what I thought because wow. Based on the Goodreads reviews I feel like I read a different book or my reading comprehension is way worse than I thought.
Unfortunately I cannot find a chapter list for this book but if recollection serves one of the first things he does is compares American education to several other countries elsewhere in the world. He discusses how a significant number of countries have national standards of education and quotes Norway's parliament:
"It is a central tenant of popular enlightenment that shared frames of reference must be the common property of all the people - indeed must be an integral part of general education - to escape avoidable differences in competence that can result in social inequality and be abused by undemocratic forces. Those who do not share the background information taken for granted in public discourse will often overlook the point or miss the meaning. Newcomers to a country who are not immersed in its frames of reference often remain outsiders because others cannot take for granted what they know and can do. They are in constant need of extra explanations. Common background knowledge is thus at the core of a national network of communication between members of the democratic community. It makes it possible to fathom complex messages and to interpret new ideas, situations, and challenges. Education plays a leading role in passing on this common background information, the culture everybody must be familiar with if society is to remain democratic and its citizens sovereign."
I've always wondered why many countries in Europe outlaw homeschooling and this quote really made me realize the rationale behind it. As someone who was homeschooled I was raised with the concept of government-controlled education being bad, but after seeing some extremely unhealthy homeschooling environments combined with the insane political turmoil happening in America I now understand why, after living through WWII you'd demand that everyone be taught about certain historical events (like the Holocaust!). Whoever has the power to influence and teach a country's children will have the power to control what frames of reference are created for that generation. In America that was(? is?) defined by states or communities which means national conversations are harder to have in that not everyone has the same frames of reference and historical context to have a coherent debate. I found this all very interesting and will have to ponder more.
The other issue with not having national standards for education is that Americans are (were?) I believe the most mobile citizens of any country meaning they moved to different parts very frequently. Without a national standard that means that something taught in your home town in 2nd grade could be taught elsewhere in 4th and vice-versa meaning when you moved a knowledge gap has been created for the child. I feel like we've all been in that situation where everyone is talking about a topic we know nothing about and how alienating it is, and there were many studies cited about how that can cause a child to become checked-out of their education for the rest of their time in school. Once you "get behind" the more that tends to spiral until it becomes nearly impossible to regain your confidence, motivation, or ability to get back on track. This also affects lower socioeconomic classes and less educated families who cannot fill in the gaps at home or pay to have remedial education. The lack of national standards it was argued, causes the education system to be more unjust and create more disparity between the rich and the poor/the advantaged and disadvantaged.
He also discussed that educational standards have to be specific and measurable - since I did not attend a public school nor is my child enrolled in one I cannot speak to how they've changed but the state standards I've printed off for my own benchmarking of where we're at are definitely as vague as the ones he critiqued in this book.
There was a whole big section on the history of educational philosophies in America vs. Europe which seems to have centered on the 1700s and the 1910s & 1920s. I have no context for knowing if this was represented well or accurately (I suppose this goes for the entire book), it seemed crazy to me but I guess crazy things happen. I asked my mom about it since she was a teacher but she went to school for journalism not teaching specifically so I'm not sure what she shared with me was representative of what is actually taught (and she went to school in the 70s so that's a long time ago). I did find it really interesting and the history was his way of laying the groundwork for a "progressive" vs. "traditional" teaching philosophy debate which lasted basically the whole rest of the book.
From the reviews I have read I'm really confused. People say that "progressive" teaching philosophy hasn't been fully tried which is the argument the author says people make but unfortunately neither the author nor the reviewers seem to indicate what more needs to be tried and in what ways it hasn't been tried. From my fully uninformed opinion I feel like what he described as "progressive" has only half been done except perhaps in alternative style schools like Montessori, Waldorf, or Charlotte Mason type education but I haven't seen any data coming out of those schools as to the efficacy of their teaching styles. I think, unfortunately, it's all going to be fairly...muddled? People like pointing to Jeff Bezos as a successful Montessori kid which, ok, but do we want our kids to be exploitative and greedy? And how much did his education contribute to that? This is a whole aside and I'm sure there have probably been studies done on "non-traditional" or "progressive" styles of education that I am not familiar with and surely studies that have come out since the writing of this book. Other than the author's tone which does come off as high and mighty I do feel like he made his points fairly well, essentially pointing out that most of the things we learn (reading, writing, much of math, etc.) are not easy nor natural. Choosing to wait until a child decides to learn those things is arguably a disservice to the child who will either be at a huge societal disadvantage if they don't learn them or is placing an onus on them to somehow know what they should be learning at their age. Expecting a 5 year old to know what they "need to know" and ask to be taught those things is pretty wild considering the same people often think that learning to read or do math is "too hard" for the typical 5 year old. The author makes the point (though honestly not enough) that kids are extremely capable of learning difficult things and the more we can teach them to take advantage of their impressive neuroplasticity the better. There were definitely times I thought he was getting a little intense about academics above all else but usually when he was right on the edge he'd walk it back and say something reasonable so I truly did not feel he was spitting radical concepts. He seemed way chiller than that homeschool mom who recommended the book to me.
The author also discussed grades, standardized testing, and all that fun stuff. I hate tests. I always had good grades but AT A COST. So I was fully prepared to HATE this section but gosh darn it I felt he made a decent case. He once again highlighted that things we think are helping people who come from more disadvantaged families often do not help. Altering grade or test standards for those who do not have the means for better home or private education isn't the answer, he says it's on the onus of the government (aka us) to make sure every single child has the requisite knowledge before the school year starts to be successful. This is what gets me, a lot of reviews say that this guy is racist and is only looking out for the white middle class and I don't know if they're getting that from this book or what but I'm not seeing it (other than obviously yes that is his background and yes I'm sure he does have large gaps in his knowledge of living that reality so maybe I just share his blind spot). He advocates at almost every turn for governmental programs to create just systems of education based on research and to provide remedial or supplementary education programs to ensure that those who do not have educated homes to help fill in the gaps can receive that. As far as standardized tests he discusses the corruption of "teaching to the test" and how that is a disservice to teachers and students alike. He also talks about how he previously(?) advocated for more open-ended type testing (I'm forgetting the proper term) like essay answers vs. multiple-choice type testing but after running an experiment and referencing a few more he outlined why open-form tests are actually more discriminatory and less just than multiple choice type testing. He goes into how many multiple-choice tests are written terribly and tries to outline ways to ask questions in such a way as to engage a student's body of knowledge and problem-solving. Honestly I don't think you're ever going to convince me that tests are great but I understand the value and necessity in student assessments and I can understand how they can be done well or poorly. Unfortunately it just seems like it always ends up being the poor versions.
Since this book came out before common core I'm not sure how much of common core did this or totally missed the mark but it does give me pause because the program from what I've heard has been a failure. I have a feeling that it also did not actually check the boxes this book required but I'm sure the progressive education philosophers would point and say "see now who's saying their version wasn't fully committed to."
Honestly there's so much more to unpack from this book and I'm still not sure how I feel about it but it gave me a lot to think about and consider in my own schooling journey.
---- Quotes I'm pondering
"Every child in a democracy must have: training in science; in art; in history; command of the fundamental methods of inquiry, and the fundamental tools of intercourse and communication; habits of industry; perseverance; and above all habits of serviceableness."
"A most important function of formal education, especially in a democracy, is to ensure as high a level of common culture as possible. Meanings, understandings, standards, and aspirations common to a large proportion of the democratic group to the end that the collective thinking and the collective decisions of the group may be done and made on the highest possible plane. This obviously calls for a goodly measure of common elements in the school programs throughout the country."
"...contrast between highly moral individuals and immoral social groups. The group can be a great beast that pulls individuals in the wrong direction against their own best sentiments."
"American exceptionalism does have some basis in reality in that our democratic political traditions and our habits of intellectual independence are special in world history but exceptionalism can become mere complacency that evades the challenge of learning the experiences of other people. Professionalism in the noblest sense denotes both heightened pride in one's work and a heightened sense of responsibility. But extreme professionalism becomes narrow and separatist. It results in a sense of group grievance and in a self-protective mentality that evades responsibility."
"Excellent classroom teaching has a narrative and dramatic feel even when there is a lot of interaction between the students and the teacher. It has a definite theme and a beginning, middle, and end. This teaching principle holds even for mathematics and science. When every lesson has a well-developed plot in which the children themselves are participants, teaching is both focused and absorbing."
"Legislators and the general public, lacking first hand knowledge of what is being tested, have tended to use test scores as a blunt and ineffective instrument of compulsion and have neglected the intellectually and politically difficult task of setting precise goals. It is hard to make or interpret tests in the absence of clearly defined educational and social goals. The duty to decide on such goals belong to society as a whole - to parents, teachers, and the representatives of the people - not to test makers."
"If there is to be responsible accountability, there is at the same time a moral imperative to provide sufficient advice and guidance. Not to provide the means for accomplishing the teaching goals on the one hand and not to hold parents, teachers, and students accountable for achieving them on the other, are equal abandonments of responsibility to children."
"But as Sydney said in his eloquent defense of poetry against the charge that it corrupts morals: 'What? Shall the abuse of a thing make the right use odious?'"
"We cannot afford still to accept the untrue belief that adequate schooling is natural and painless and mainly a function of individual talent rather than hard work. We must reject the false claim that delaying learning till the child is "ready" will speed up learning in the long run. We must cease listening to the siren call that learning should be motivated entirely by inward love of the subject and interest in it..."
This book was recommended to me by a Youtuber who is a homeschool mom that I actually don't follow anymore due to always feeling "less than" and negative after watching her videos. She's clearly putting a ton of thought and effort into prioritizing her kids' academics so kudos to her. I decided to check out this book thinking it was going to be one thing and now I'm not sure if I totally misunderstood the book or she did or her beliefs are totally different than what I thought because wow. Based on the Goodreads reviews I feel like I read a different book or my reading comprehension is way worse than I thought.
Unfortunately I cannot find a chapter list for this book but if recollection serves one of the first things he does is compares American education to several other countries elsewhere in the world. He discusses how a significant number of countries have national standards of education and quotes Norway's parliament:
"It is a central tenant of popular enlightenment that shared frames of reference must be the common property of all the people - indeed must be an integral part of general education - to escape avoidable differences in competence that can result in social inequality and be abused by undemocratic forces. Those who do not share the background information taken for granted in public discourse will often overlook the point or miss the meaning. Newcomers to a country who are not immersed in its frames of reference often remain outsiders because others cannot take for granted what they know and can do. They are in constant need of extra explanations. Common background knowledge is thus at the core of a national network of communication between members of the democratic community. It makes it possible to fathom complex messages and to interpret new ideas, situations, and challenges. Education plays a leading role in passing on this common background information, the culture everybody must be familiar with if society is to remain democratic and its citizens sovereign."
I've always wondered why many countries in Europe outlaw homeschooling and this quote really made me realize the rationale behind it. As someone who was homeschooled I was raised with the concept of government-controlled education being bad, but after seeing some extremely unhealthy homeschooling environments combined with the insane political turmoil happening in America I now understand why, after living through WWII you'd demand that everyone be taught about certain historical events (like the Holocaust!). Whoever has the power to influence and teach a country's children will have the power to control what frames of reference are created for that generation. In America that was(? is?) defined by states or communities which means national conversations are harder to have in that not everyone has the same frames of reference and historical context to have a coherent debate. I found this all very interesting and will have to ponder more.
The other issue with not having national standards for education is that Americans are (were?) I believe the most mobile citizens of any country meaning they moved to different parts very frequently. Without a national standard that means that something taught in your home town in 2nd grade could be taught elsewhere in 4th and vice-versa meaning when you moved a knowledge gap has been created for the child. I feel like we've all been in that situation where everyone is talking about a topic we know nothing about and how alienating it is, and there were many studies cited about how that can cause a child to become checked-out of their education for the rest of their time in school. Once you "get behind" the more that tends to spiral until it becomes nearly impossible to regain your confidence, motivation, or ability to get back on track. This also affects lower socioeconomic classes and less educated families who cannot fill in the gaps at home or pay to have remedial education. The lack of national standards it was argued, causes the education system to be more unjust and create more disparity between the rich and the poor/the advantaged and disadvantaged.
He also discussed that educational standards have to be specific and measurable - since I did not attend a public school nor is my child enrolled in one I cannot speak to how they've changed but the state standards I've printed off for my own benchmarking of where we're at are definitely as vague as the ones he critiqued in this book.
There was a whole big section on the history of educational philosophies in America vs. Europe which seems to have centered on the 1700s and the 1910s & 1920s. I have no context for knowing if this was represented well or accurately (I suppose this goes for the entire book), it seemed crazy to me but I guess crazy things happen. I asked my mom about it since she was a teacher but she went to school for journalism not teaching specifically so I'm not sure what she shared with me was representative of what is actually taught (and she went to school in the 70s so that's a long time ago). I did find it really interesting and the history was his way of laying the groundwork for a "progressive" vs. "traditional" teaching philosophy debate which lasted basically the whole rest of the book.
From the reviews I have read I'm really confused. People say that "progressive" teaching philosophy hasn't been fully tried which is the argument the author says people make but unfortunately neither the author nor the reviewers seem to indicate what more needs to be tried and in what ways it hasn't been tried. From my fully uninformed opinion I feel like what he described as "progressive" has only half been done except perhaps in alternative style schools like Montessori, Waldorf, or Charlotte Mason type education but I haven't seen any data coming out of those schools as to the efficacy of their teaching styles. I think, unfortunately, it's all going to be fairly...muddled? People like pointing to Jeff Bezos as a successful Montessori kid which, ok, but do we want our kids to be exploitative and greedy? And how much did his education contribute to that? This is a whole aside and I'm sure there have probably been studies done on "non-traditional" or "progressive" styles of education that I am not familiar with and surely studies that have come out since the writing of this book. Other than the author's tone which does come off as high and mighty I do feel like he made his points fairly well, essentially pointing out that most of the things we learn (reading, writing, much of math, etc.) are not easy nor natural. Choosing to wait until a child decides to learn those things is arguably a disservice to the child who will either be at a huge societal disadvantage if they don't learn them or is placing an onus on them to somehow know what they should be learning at their age. Expecting a 5 year old to know what they "need to know" and ask to be taught those things is pretty wild considering the same people often think that learning to read or do math is "too hard" for the typical 5 year old. The author makes the point (though honestly not enough) that kids are extremely capable of learning difficult things and the more we can teach them to take advantage of their impressive neuroplasticity the better. There were definitely times I thought he was getting a little intense about academics above all else but usually when he was right on the edge he'd walk it back and say something reasonable so I truly did not feel he was spitting radical concepts. He seemed way chiller than that homeschool mom who recommended the book to me.
The author also discussed grades, standardized testing, and all that fun stuff. I hate tests. I always had good grades but AT A COST. So I was fully prepared to HATE this section but gosh darn it I felt he made a decent case. He once again highlighted that things we think are helping people who come from more disadvantaged families often do not help. Altering grade or test standards for those who do not have the means for better home or private education isn't the answer, he says it's on the onus of the government (aka us) to make sure every single child has the requisite knowledge before the school year starts to be successful. This is what gets me, a lot of reviews say that this guy is racist and is only looking out for the white middle class and I don't know if they're getting that from this book or what but I'm not seeing it (other than obviously yes that is his background and yes I'm sure he does have large gaps in his knowledge of living that reality so maybe I just share his blind spot). He advocates at almost every turn for governmental programs to create just systems of education based on research and to provide remedial or supplementary education programs to ensure that those who do not have educated homes to help fill in the gaps can receive that. As far as standardized tests he discusses the corruption of "teaching to the test" and how that is a disservice to teachers and students alike. He also talks about how he previously(?) advocated for more open-ended type testing (I'm forgetting the proper term) like essay answers vs. multiple-choice type testing but after running an experiment and referencing a few more he outlined why open-form tests are actually more discriminatory and less just than multiple choice type testing. He goes into how many multiple-choice tests are written terribly and tries to outline ways to ask questions in such a way as to engage a student's body of knowledge and problem-solving. Honestly I don't think you're ever going to convince me that tests are great but I understand the value and necessity in student assessments and I can understand how they can be done well or poorly. Unfortunately it just seems like it always ends up being the poor versions.
Since this book came out before common core I'm not sure how much of common core did this or totally missed the mark but it does give me pause because the program from what I've heard has been a failure. I have a feeling that it also did not actually check the boxes this book required but I'm sure the progressive education philosophers would point and say "see now who's saying their version wasn't fully committed to."
Honestly there's so much more to unpack from this book and I'm still not sure how I feel about it but it gave me a lot to think about and consider in my own schooling journey.
---- Quotes I'm pondering
"Every child in a democracy must have: training in science; in art; in history; command of the fundamental methods of inquiry, and the fundamental tools of intercourse and communication; habits of industry; perseverance; and above all habits of serviceableness."
"A most important function of formal education, especially in a democracy, is to ensure as high a level of common culture as possible. Meanings, understandings, standards, and aspirations common to a large proportion of the democratic group to the end that the collective thinking and the collective decisions of the group may be done and made on the highest possible plane. This obviously calls for a goodly measure of common elements in the school programs throughout the country."
"...contrast between highly moral individuals and immoral social groups. The group can be a great beast that pulls individuals in the wrong direction against their own best sentiments."
"American exceptionalism does have some basis in reality in that our democratic political traditions and our habits of intellectual independence are special in world history but exceptionalism can become mere complacency that evades the challenge of learning the experiences of other people. Professionalism in the noblest sense denotes both heightened pride in one's work and a heightened sense of responsibility. But extreme professionalism becomes narrow and separatist. It results in a sense of group grievance and in a self-protective mentality that evades responsibility."
"Excellent classroom teaching has a narrative and dramatic feel even when there is a lot of interaction between the students and the teacher. It has a definite theme and a beginning, middle, and end. This teaching principle holds even for mathematics and science. When every lesson has a well-developed plot in which the children themselves are participants, teaching is both focused and absorbing."
"Legislators and the general public, lacking first hand knowledge of what is being tested, have tended to use test scores as a blunt and ineffective instrument of compulsion and have neglected the intellectually and politically difficult task of setting precise goals. It is hard to make or interpret tests in the absence of clearly defined educational and social goals. The duty to decide on such goals belong to society as a whole - to parents, teachers, and the representatives of the people - not to test makers."
"If there is to be responsible accountability, there is at the same time a moral imperative to provide sufficient advice and guidance. Not to provide the means for accomplishing the teaching goals on the one hand and not to hold parents, teachers, and students accountable for achieving them on the other, are equal abandonments of responsibility to children."
"But as Sydney said in his eloquent defense of poetry against the charge that it corrupts morals: 'What? Shall the abuse of a thing make the right use odious?'"
"We cannot afford still to accept the untrue belief that adequate schooling is natural and painless and mainly a function of individual talent rather than hard work. We must reject the false claim that delaying learning till the child is "ready" will speed up learning in the long run. We must cease listening to the siren call that learning should be motivated entirely by inward love of the subject and interest in it..."
May 20, 2012
A must read for anyone wondering why our public schools are in such a mess. You can tell by some of the other reviews just how divisive this issue is, but as a teacher I KNOW what I experienced in the classroom, and I know that Hirsch is right. However, I'm not as sure as he is in his faith that public education can be repaired.
May 15, 2008
Ideologically, I just don't agree with Hirsch. I think that he puts a rather biased slant on everything, particularly on schools of education and the progressive stance toward education. He oversimplifies the problems and offers little by way of solution. If I were bolder, I might accuse him of racism for his ignorance of and lack of respect for cultural issues.
There are parts of his argument to which I am amenable, such as having clearer national standards for curriculum. His argument about the transience of the American family is legit.
To claim that progressivist techniques have been tried and have failed is a bold lie. As a teacher in public schools, I know that most of my colleagues use traditional forms of teaching and plow through the curriculum with little regard to students' retention of material. However, he is justified in noting the flaws in the "project" method... BUT only because the "project" method has not been appropriately implemented. There's too much to it to get into in a simple GoodReads review that no one will read, but I hope many people are not swayed by Hirsch's voice of "authority."
The conclusion to the book was just dreadful - who needs twenty-odd pages to summarize what they've just read over 200 pages?
There are parts of his argument to which I am amenable, such as having clearer national standards for curriculum. His argument about the transience of the American family is legit.
To claim that progressivist techniques have been tried and have failed is a bold lie. As a teacher in public schools, I know that most of my colleagues use traditional forms of teaching and plow through the curriculum with little regard to students' retention of material. However, he is justified in noting the flaws in the "project" method... BUT only because the "project" method has not been appropriately implemented. There's too much to it to get into in a simple GoodReads review that no one will read, but I hope many people are not swayed by Hirsch's voice of "authority."
The conclusion to the book was just dreadful - who needs twenty-odd pages to summarize what they've just read over 200 pages?
September 20, 2010
This book helps explain the reason why America's scores on achievement tests suck when compared to other nations. Hirsch is a pretty cool guy---has a great sense of humor!! I enjoyed all of the chapters except Chapter 5---which I am about to read again! Hirsch's view is that progressive education----discovery learning, teaching the "whole child," project-based learning has been around for almost a century and is the cause of the downfall of our education system. Why do we do this and not practice what the research says is best----direct instruction---learning of basic facts and a mixture of the two (progressive) is best because we have to know about basic facts in order to expand our knowledge and develop critical thinking skills.
Hirsch is a bit extremist in some aspects (he wants a national curriculum) but makes many valid points. Educators should read Chp 6 where he discusses the need for standardized tests. What is coool about Hirsch is that he is not a politician, some guy in an ivory tower, or a psychologist. He is simply (!) an educator that wrote this in the 90s and I'm sure has had many criticisms from his peers. Rock on, Hirsch---you are hardCORE!!!! (Hirsch developed the schools called Core Knowledge).
Hirsch is a bit extremist in some aspects (he wants a national curriculum) but makes many valid points. Educators should read Chp 6 where he discusses the need for standardized tests. What is coool about Hirsch is that he is not a politician, some guy in an ivory tower, or a psychologist. He is simply (!) an educator that wrote this in the 90s and I'm sure has had many criticisms from his peers. Rock on, Hirsch---you are hardCORE!!!! (Hirsch developed the schools called Core Knowledge).
March 1, 2010
This book provides a great deal of history as to how our educational system developed the way it did. That part is useful. The authors ideas on how to improve education aren't bad, but I did take offense to some of the attacks on teachers of public schools being the problem. The book admits that many times public school teachers are ham-stringed by federal, state, and local rules and regulations (and the great presence of lawyers in schools, which he doesn't mention), but then he blames the teachers anyway. I've visited the charter school that the book mentions in Fort Collins, CO and I think it's wonderful, but I also realize it is so because that school is allowed to disregard some state mandated requirements on how to spend money that the public school must adhere to. I believe that if the public schools were allowed to do the same, you would see better results from them as well.
January 1, 2022
Some who have only heard detractions about this book may be surprised to find it here. Don’t expose your brain to this book if you, like Alfie Kohn, wish to remain convinced that education is a very narrow field with a single one-size-fits-all theory. Do not read it if you wish to remain convinced that everyone who disagrees with Alfie Kohn is either an unthinking bumpkin or reactionary, or that the only possible answers in education are already espoused by the currently dominant group of education professors. If, however, you wish to expose yourself to deep thinking about education from a wider selection of resources, then this is your book. Review on YouTube https://youtu.be/-FcgCOjLpis
July 24, 2019
It was hard for me to rate this book. On the one hand, he's exactly and completely right. I found absolutely nothing with which to disagree on this book. If his ideas were the basis for rating this book, it would be a solid 5. Unfortunately, I realized that there's more to it than that.
FIrst of all, he neglects part of his case. He absolutely nails the "why we don't have them" part, but he says remarkably little about "the schools we need." The little he says is vague generalities. The book is relentlessly boring in places and repetitive in others.
P.S. It's worth noting that this book was written in 1996, and every criticism that he lays at the feet of the educationist establishment is still valid. Literally nothing has improved in a generation.
FIrst of all, he neglects part of his case. He absolutely nails the "why we don't have them" part, but he says remarkably little about "the schools we need." The little he says is vague generalities. The book is relentlessly boring in places and repetitive in others.
P.S. It's worth noting that this book was written in 1996, and every criticism that he lays at the feet of the educationist establishment is still valid. Literally nothing has improved in a generation.
April 26, 2016
Sixteen years later and this book is just as relevant today. While I agree with his arguments, the book itself is too influenced by his understandable frustration and overly dismissive of the other side and where their ideas came from to begin with. Kind of made me feel hopeless that we are a position to do much about any of this and we're stuck in a cycle of have and have nots for a long time to come.
July 24, 2017
The book gives explanations but tends to be a bit of a diatribe.
May 25, 2024
"The Schools We Need: And Why We Don't Have Them" by E.D. Hirsch Jr. is a critical examination of contemporary American education, arguing forcefully for a return to a more classical and content-rich curriculum. Hirsch, known for his advocacy of cultural literacy, presents a compelling case that the root of many educational failures is the lack of a coherent, knowledge-based curriculum. His arguments are not only thought-provoking but also seek to challenge the prevailing educational philosophies that dominate American schools.
Hirsch’s critique centers around the idea that modern educational methods, which often emphasize skills over knowledge and relativism over factual content, fail to equip students with the broad foundation necessary to achieve true literacy and critical thinking. According to Hirsch, this has led to a widening gap in educational outcomes, particularly affecting students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who do not receive cultural literacy from their environments. He argues that a unified, knowledge-centric curriculum would help level the playing field by ensuring all students, regardless of background, receive the same foundational knowledge.
One of the strengths of the book is Hirsch’s deep dive into the historical and intellectual origins of current educational practices. He traces the development of anti-curricular sentiments back to Romantic origins and progressive educational theorists, critiquing them not just on philosophical grounds but also through empirical evidence that suggests these methods have not succeeded in improving educational outcomes.
Hirsch is particularly persuasive when discussing the importance of cultural literacy—the idea that a shared base of common knowledge is essential for effective communication and community participation. He suggests that without a curriculum that imparts a shared body of knowledge, students are left at a disadvantage both academically and socially. His advocacy for a return to a more traditional, content-heavy curriculum is framed as a necessary step to prepare students not just for college and career but for responsible citizenship.
However, "The Schools We Need" is likely to provoke controversy, especially among educators who favor more progressive, student-centered approaches that Hirsch criticizes. Some may find his views on education reform overly prescriptive or not sufficiently attentive to the diversity of student needs and learning styles.
Despite these potential points of contention, Hirsch's book is undeniably well-researched and rich with insights into what ails American education and how it might be remedied. His call for a unified curriculum resonates as a potential solution to the fragmentation and incoherence he identifies as so damaging.
In conclusion, "The Schools We Need: And Why We Don't Have Them" by E.D. Hirsch Jr. is an essential read for educators, policymakers, and parents alike. It offers a rigorous critique of contemporary educational practices and a clear vision for how to improve them that is both challenging and enlightening. Whether one agrees with Hirsch’s conclusions or not, his book is a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation about how best to educate America’s children and serves as a passionate plea for educational reform that prioritizes knowledge and cultural literacy.
Hirsch’s critique centers around the idea that modern educational methods, which often emphasize skills over knowledge and relativism over factual content, fail to equip students with the broad foundation necessary to achieve true literacy and critical thinking. According to Hirsch, this has led to a widening gap in educational outcomes, particularly affecting students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who do not receive cultural literacy from their environments. He argues that a unified, knowledge-centric curriculum would help level the playing field by ensuring all students, regardless of background, receive the same foundational knowledge.
One of the strengths of the book is Hirsch’s deep dive into the historical and intellectual origins of current educational practices. He traces the development of anti-curricular sentiments back to Romantic origins and progressive educational theorists, critiquing them not just on philosophical grounds but also through empirical evidence that suggests these methods have not succeeded in improving educational outcomes.
Hirsch is particularly persuasive when discussing the importance of cultural literacy—the idea that a shared base of common knowledge is essential for effective communication and community participation. He suggests that without a curriculum that imparts a shared body of knowledge, students are left at a disadvantage both academically and socially. His advocacy for a return to a more traditional, content-heavy curriculum is framed as a necessary step to prepare students not just for college and career but for responsible citizenship.
However, "The Schools We Need" is likely to provoke controversy, especially among educators who favor more progressive, student-centered approaches that Hirsch criticizes. Some may find his views on education reform overly prescriptive or not sufficiently attentive to the diversity of student needs and learning styles.
Despite these potential points of contention, Hirsch's book is undeniably well-researched and rich with insights into what ails American education and how it might be remedied. His call for a unified curriculum resonates as a potential solution to the fragmentation and incoherence he identifies as so damaging.
In conclusion, "The Schools We Need: And Why We Don't Have Them" by E.D. Hirsch Jr. is an essential read for educators, policymakers, and parents alike. It offers a rigorous critique of contemporary educational practices and a clear vision for how to improve them that is both challenging and enlightening. Whether one agrees with Hirsch’s conclusions or not, his book is a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation about how best to educate America’s children and serves as a passionate plea for educational reform that prioritizes knowledge and cultural literacy.
October 25, 2022
Hirsch makes some strong arguments about cultural literacy and core knowledge that are well defended. But at other points he is painfully wordy and devotes whole chapters to what could be done in a paragraph. The summary and conclusion chapter does what the whole book aspired to do but more effectively and succinctly. Nevertheless, there are some good takeaways and a generally valid critique of prevailing educational policies and ideas.
April 8, 2024
Not an easy read but really interesting!
October 17, 2008
It was hard to decide how many stars to give this book, because, let me be very clear, it started out bad and ended up downright CREEPY! However, I think it is a very important book to understanding the Traditionalist debate. If I had not read this, I don't think I would have believed what the progressives say about the traditionalists. A clinching moment was when he criticized a certain method of progressive education as "boring... like reading Charlotte's Web in multipe different grades." First of all, reading a classic book multiple times is what GREAT LEARNING IS ALL ABOUT! Second of all, since when did the likes of Hirsch care about a curriculum being boring??? Another fine moment was when he praised the French system of sending 2 year olds to all day school in order to more effectively erradicate all parental influence. By the end of the book he has created a vision of a completely uniform, nationalized curriculum (his) that will somehow transcend all cultural, religious and socio-economic boundaries. Somehow I just wasn't buying it.
March 2, 2013
I am a new teacher and this book has shed some light on what is wrong with American education system. I student taught in a low income area and was exposed to students that had no interaction from parents at home (mostly because they worked two or more job, making for a long day) and students that entered and exited many different schools in a short period of time. I am only half way completed with the book and I can see how the Core Knowledge program could eliminate these excuses entirely. A some what strict curriculum that is designed to prepare the student for the next grade and is aligned to state core standards.
I am applying to a school that incorporates the Core Knowledge way of teaching. Curriculum based on "What your _____ grader should know" in order to get through to the next grade. I am intrigued to get to the second half of the book.
I am applying to a school that incorporates the Core Knowledge way of teaching. Curriculum based on "What your _____ grader should know" in order to get through to the next grade. I am intrigued to get to the second half of the book.
April 18, 2016
Strongly reiterates Cultural Literacy and offers historical perspective of how we got here and why we are unlikely to get out. Teacher education in America is following the Romantic ideal of teaching the child versus teaching material. The Conservative view is that all kids must learn if they are going to be citizens and active participants in America. While there has never been a national curriculum, what are students learn is significantly dumbed down from the late 1800's and will continue to decline.
All students can learn and the early grades is the right time to catch that up. That effort will bring K-12 education back to the world class standards enjoyed by American Colleges and Universities.
All students can learn and the early grades is the right time to catch that up. That effort will bring K-12 education back to the world class standards enjoyed by American Colleges and Universities.
March 19, 2012
Excellent analysis of the history of American schools and how our intellectual history--that is, our foundations in Enlightenment philosophy and our national "coming of age" in the era of Romanticism--affects our education system. Thoroughly convinced me that education reform that does not address curriculum reform (meaning, a strong content-based curriculum, hopefully one that is nationwide or at least exists in every state) is incomplete reform.
I highly recommend this book to someone who wants to understand the 'long view' of American education beyond the highly charged rhetoric of the current era.
I highly recommend this book to someone who wants to understand the 'long view' of American education beyond the highly charged rhetoric of the current era.
April 2, 2010
Reading this book was like having someone sit down and explain to me personally the way that we learn, that way that schools teach, and why the two don't match up, and do it in a way that made absolute sense to me. By the time I finished this book, I was a dyed-in-the-wool advocate for the Core Knowledge program. It simply made sense. I cannot more strongly recommend this book to people who are going into education, or who are currently in the education field. It will change how you view education, I guarantee it.
July 9, 2010
Ug, I really tried to read this book thoroughly, but there was just too much unnecessary language. Maybe others felt differently, but I really felt the words sometimes detracted from the point. The whole wrapping of the book is intellectual capital, everyone needs it before entering the real world- but the method of attaining it is the question. I see a lot of other people on this board that got the complete story out of this book, but I didn't. In the end, I wish there was a conclusion, instead of leaving me with questions about which method to choose. Maybe that was the point?
March 18, 2015
I think this is an extremely valuable book. This is a book that is thought-provoking and makes me want to change education in this country. Even if you don't agree with everything Hirsch says, I do believe it should make people reexamine their views about the educational status quo.
I wish there would be an updated version in the wake of Common Core and advanced technology, though. The book is somewhat dated in that aspect. The principles, though, that he is fighting against have been around for a long time and still don't seem to be going away.
I wish there would be an updated version in the wake of Common Core and advanced technology, though. The book is somewhat dated in that aspect. The principles, though, that he is fighting against have been around for a long time and still don't seem to be going away.
April 26, 2015
head start needs academic rigor too, late 60s decline, move whole group along repetition core knowledge, need to defeat enemy within, Jefferson need for first elements of morality, too much transition, France head start all day with academic goals, focus on challenging learning, why universities better than K12—competition and openness depth/breadth of subjects, political correctness stifles openness, intellectual monopoly vs competition, Jamaica achievement via expectations, must test rigor develop thirst and desire for learning.
June 24, 2015
Damn, that was depressing. So projects are fairly pointless? The "new, progressive ideals" are from the 1920s? More standardization is needed? As an educator, is saddens me that this book, written in 1995, is still current. With each side claiming their point of view is "research based," how does anyone know what to do? If you are an educator, and you wish to day brought down while also being informed, I strongly recommend this book.
July 1, 2016
Absolutely essential book for educators. Exposes the nakedness of progressives' "child-centered," fact-deficient pedagogy of "critical thinking" and "discovery learning," clothed in the rhetoric woven from the pretended stuffs of "research." Traditional education, Hirsch argues, is actually the most progressive, because it actually confers on those less advantaged the knowledge and ability they need to succeed.
July 2, 2025
Although it contains some interesting ideas and debates in his fight against educational progressivism, Hirsch (who declares himself as a political liberal and an educational pragmatist) is here extremely partial in his opinions and explanations.
Besides, the book is very focused on the particularities of the USA education system... a country in which I have never lived. And unlike in other books of the style, I could hardly apply to my country what Hirsch debated here.
Besides, the book is very focused on the particularities of the USA education system... a country in which I have never lived. And unlike in other books of the style, I could hardly apply to my country what Hirsch debated here.
February 7, 2009
Interesting read about the problems in schools/education. I completely disagree with the author's argument and suggestions for change. He presents an extremely conservative, biased [mainstream, white, middle class:] opinion that does not consider the reality of schools or student populations. It's almost insulting, but Hirsch represents an ideology that's not going away any time soon.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews