What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Educate a Citizen: The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation
“Profound, vital and correct. Hirsch highlights the essence of our American being and the radical changes in education necessary to sustain that essence. Concerned citizens, teachers, and parents take note! We ignore this book at our peril."— Joel Klein, former Chancellor of New York City Public Schools
In this powerful manifesto, the bestselling author of Cultural Literacy addresses the failures of America’s early education system and its impact on our current national malaise, advocating for a shared knowledge curriculum students everywhere can be taught—an educational foundation that can help improve and strengthen America’s unity, identity, and democracy.
In 'HOW TO EDUCATE A CITIZEN, E.D. Hirsch continues the conversation he began thirty years ago with his classic bestseller Cultural Literacy, urging America’s public schools, particularly at the elementary level, to educate our children more effectively to help heal and preserve the nation. Since the 1960s, our schools have been relying on “child-centered learning.” History, geography, science, civics, and other essential knowledge have been dumbed down by vacuous learning “techniques” and “values-based” curricula; indoctrinated by graduate schools of education, administrators and educators have believed they are teaching reading and critical thinking skills. Yet these cannot be taught in the absence of strong content, Hirsch argues.
The consequence is a loss of shared knowledge that would enable us to work together, understand one another, and make coherent, informed decisions. A broken approach to school not only leaves our children under-prepared and erodes the American dream but also loosens the spiritual bonds and unity that hold the nation together. Drawing on early schoolmasters and educational reformers such as Noah Webster and Horace Mann, Hirsch charts the rise and fall of the American early education system and provides a blueprint for closing the national gap in knowledge, communications, and allegiance. Critical and compelling,'HOW TO EDUCATE A CITIZEN' galvanizes our schools to equip children with the power of shared knowledge.
RUNNING TIME ⇒ 5hrs.
©2020 E.D. Hirsch (P)2020 HarperCollins Publishers
In this powerful manifesto, the bestselling author of Cultural Literacy addresses the failures of America’s early education system and its impact on our current national malaise, advocating for a shared knowledge curriculum students everywhere can be taught—an educational foundation that can help improve and strengthen America’s unity, identity, and democracy.
In 'HOW TO EDUCATE A CITIZEN, E.D. Hirsch continues the conversation he began thirty years ago with his classic bestseller Cultural Literacy, urging America’s public schools, particularly at the elementary level, to educate our children more effectively to help heal and preserve the nation. Since the 1960s, our schools have been relying on “child-centered learning.” History, geography, science, civics, and other essential knowledge have been dumbed down by vacuous learning “techniques” and “values-based” curricula; indoctrinated by graduate schools of education, administrators and educators have believed they are teaching reading and critical thinking skills. Yet these cannot be taught in the absence of strong content, Hirsch argues.
The consequence is a loss of shared knowledge that would enable us to work together, understand one another, and make coherent, informed decisions. A broken approach to school not only leaves our children under-prepared and erodes the American dream but also loosens the spiritual bonds and unity that hold the nation together. Drawing on early schoolmasters and educational reformers such as Noah Webster and Horace Mann, Hirsch charts the rise and fall of the American early education system and provides a blueprint for closing the national gap in knowledge, communications, and allegiance. Critical and compelling,'HOW TO EDUCATE A CITIZEN' galvanizes our schools to equip children with the power of shared knowledge.
RUNNING TIME ⇒ 5hrs.
©2020 E.D. Hirsch (P)2020 HarperCollins Publishers
Audible Audio
First published September 8, 2020
109 people are currently reading
767 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
October 16, 2020
In the opening chapter, there is a quote from Arthur Schlesinger's prescient The Disuniting of America (Norton, 1991) that captures the point of this book:
And that is precisely what has occurred. All 500,000 students in the Cal State University system are now required to take an Ethnic Studies course, the characteristics of which are the following components: "affirmation of their cultural identity [not American, of course, but their identity group], external attribution for difficulties [!], forewarning about stereotypes, etc." This is divisive and un American. We are Americans all, not tribes. E Pluribus UNUM. All of my grandparents immigrated to this nation. The story of America is my story, and the task of the public school is to guide students to know that with their heads and feel that with their hearts.
Hirsch's focus is on the primary grades, which transmit foundational knowledge, foster the ability to communicate, and shape "our gut allegiance." Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) declared in the 18th century, "The Education of youth is, in all governments, an object of the first consequence. The impressions received in early life, usually form the character of individuals; a union of which forms the general character of a nation." They are a critical period for developing citizenship [and civilizing the savages, as the Victorian Arnold of Rugby put it], a duty that schools took seriously from the dawn of the common schools in the 1800s through the successful assimilation of massive waves of immigrants through the 20th century. It is precisely this mission that helped the Irish, Italians, Jews, and others to adopt the American identity, and gain the necessary cultural capital to rise out of poverty and prosper.
In the 1960s, however, a massive and tragic shift occurred to individualistic child-centered "vacuous" education. Informed by Romanticism and the correlate that children should learn what interests them naturally and be guided rather than taught, direct instruction a brutal power play meant to subdue the noble savage into conformity with a fallen world. In the Sudbury schools, a quintessential example, graduates interviewed just last year couldn't identify Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King, Jr., because their interests didn't lead them there. Clearly, this method will not lead to an educated citizenry.
Alas, unchecked and untamed, human nature slides into barbarism and tribalism. Individuals' preferences, aesthetic tastes, and behavior must be elevated, shaped to esteem that which is good, virtuous and beautiful, to sacrifice for the common good and a meaningful life. They do not come to that naturally any more than any other animal. Hirsch's point is that "The results [of this recent educational philosophy] have been devastating: It's not simply a matter of ignorance...[but] also the loss of a shared knowledge base across the nation that would otherwise enable us to work together, understand one another, and make coherent, informed decisions at the local and national level" (5). Ergo, we must return to knowledge-centered schools, in which the specific content, not merely skills or nebulous standards, to be covered is explicitly stated and the same throughout the nation.
Hirsch, a professed socialist, was been mischaracterized in 1988 as an arch conservative with the publication of his renowned book Cultural Literacy, because his approach did not square with the nascent multiculturalism that was then becoming de rigueur. He argued even then that instilling common foundational knowledge was essential to helping the more challenged socioeconomic quintiles to reach parity. He now demonstrates that the repeated lowering of the bar to suit the lowest common denominator has had deleterious consequences for civic engagement, social cohesion, and basic knowledge, particularly as indicated by PISA scores.
Hirsch points to declines in PISA scores in the U.S., Germany, France, and Sweden when they adopted the "progressive" method of education, centering differentiation and student-centered practices and their recovery upon implementing knowledge-based pedagogy. As one who is particularly sensitive to correlation without causation, I found the evidence presented compelling. [As an aside, other scholars have taken great issue with comparing other nations with questionable reporting ethics with U.S. schools, which have considerable numbers of students whose first language is other than English. See https://www.newgeography.com/content/... ]
What is frankly bizarre here is Hirsch's preoccupation with what he perceives to be the ubiquitous influence of Dewey and touchy-feely student-centered learning when it is axiomatic in education that "Thorndike won," with his emphasis on grades, structures, etc. The standardized testing that governs what is taught in K-12 is all Thorndike. Project-based, inquiry-driven learning is Dewey. How on earth could Hirsch somehow imagine the latter to be prevalent? Where does this idyllic, if misguided, differentiation and extensive choice occur? Not in any of the public schools I visit or read about in EdWeek. Where do they not use the same texts and topics in every classroom?
Hirsch describes the imperative for a common language, by which he means cultural referents. Lacking those, communication breaks down and society along with it. As Founding Chief Academic Officer, I held the responsibility for creating the program of study for a new high school that was diverse in every way and I prioritized instilling cultural capital in the disadvantaged. I wanted to be sure that they were familiar with significant cultural references and literary allusions, that they were able to communicate clearly in standard English, and that they knew how to behave during an interview or business lunch, among many other situations. No one disputes that there is a dominant culture, which the radical Left sees as oppressive and "Whiteness" and the mainstream sees as a neutral statement of fact. To fail to prepare students to function in this society is dereliction of duty.
Hirsch is concerned with lifting the downtrodden and thus, what he is suggesting is more relevant more to the challenged quintiles than the highest. The charter schools that get all the attention for minority students' high test scores, like Success Academy, are like prisons, while progressive schools are attended by the top socioeconomic quintiles, with lax rules. It is instructive here to reference Jean Anyon's work on the ways that socioeconomic class is reproduced in the classroom. Working class schools like Success Academy emphasize obedience and procedure; middle class schools, learning or calculating the right answer; professional class schools, creative expression. In the executive class school, however, analysis and strategy are emphasized. "See the pattern, develop the work plan, find the flaw, present your work with authority." They are training to work in the C-Suite or McKinsey from earliest childhood. Different socioeconomic quintiles are provided different opportunities and levels of knowledge that build on one another.
As noted, Hirsch's focus is the primary school. In the wildly successful high school, I had a vision for project-based education inspired by attending the International Science and Engineering Fair, at which high school students from around the world present their astonishing research. We attempted and succeeded in lifting all boats, not an easy task with offspring of both billionaires and indigent in the same classroom. Everyone completed the same assignment, but some students read peer-reviewed journal articles, while English language learners read texts on their level. Both groups presented sophisticated posters with a hypothesis, methodology, conclusion, and citations they and we were proud of. They learned skills and content. We offered math courses through Multivariable Calculus and Differential Equations. Our students won the $100,000 Siemens Award, ISEF Grand Prize, obtained patents, presented at national conferences as adults (not students), published hundreds of novels, etc. Our first graduating classes were admitted to all the Ivy and Ivy+ universities, including CalTech and MIT. I wrote about my vision and its implementation in Engage!: Setting the Course for Independent Secondary Schools in the 21st Century.
Hirsch is right that schools exist to educate citizens, particularly in the United States, where we do not share inherited features, blood ties, or shared religion. He is right that we need to build cultural capital. He is right that we need to be more specific and clear about the content to be learned in every grade level and standardize it across the nation. I remain at a loss to understand why he seems to think content cannot be learned through projects, students must be physically oriented to the teacher, or that students should not pursue their individual interests within the structure of the specific content. I have empirical evidence to the contrary.
"The bonds of national cohesion are sufficiently fragile already. Public education should aim to strengthen those bonds, not to weaken them. If separatist tendencies go on unchecked, the result can only be the fragmentation, re-segregation, and tribalization of American life."
And that is precisely what has occurred. All 500,000 students in the Cal State University system are now required to take an Ethnic Studies course, the characteristics of which are the following components: "affirmation of their cultural identity [not American, of course, but their identity group], external attribution for difficulties [!], forewarning about stereotypes, etc." This is divisive and un American. We are Americans all, not tribes. E Pluribus UNUM. All of my grandparents immigrated to this nation. The story of America is my story, and the task of the public school is to guide students to know that with their heads and feel that with their hearts.
Hirsch's focus is on the primary grades, which transmit foundational knowledge, foster the ability to communicate, and shape "our gut allegiance." Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) declared in the 18th century, "The Education of youth is, in all governments, an object of the first consequence. The impressions received in early life, usually form the character of individuals; a union of which forms the general character of a nation." They are a critical period for developing citizenship [and civilizing the savages, as the Victorian Arnold of Rugby put it], a duty that schools took seriously from the dawn of the common schools in the 1800s through the successful assimilation of massive waves of immigrants through the 20th century. It is precisely this mission that helped the Irish, Italians, Jews, and others to adopt the American identity, and gain the necessary cultural capital to rise out of poverty and prosper.
In the 1960s, however, a massive and tragic shift occurred to individualistic child-centered "vacuous" education. Informed by Romanticism and the correlate that children should learn what interests them naturally and be guided rather than taught, direct instruction a brutal power play meant to subdue the noble savage into conformity with a fallen world. In the Sudbury schools, a quintessential example, graduates interviewed just last year couldn't identify Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King, Jr., because their interests didn't lead them there. Clearly, this method will not lead to an educated citizenry.
Alas, unchecked and untamed, human nature slides into barbarism and tribalism. Individuals' preferences, aesthetic tastes, and behavior must be elevated, shaped to esteem that which is good, virtuous and beautiful, to sacrifice for the common good and a meaningful life. They do not come to that naturally any more than any other animal. Hirsch's point is that "The results [of this recent educational philosophy] have been devastating: It's not simply a matter of ignorance...[but] also the loss of a shared knowledge base across the nation that would otherwise enable us to work together, understand one another, and make coherent, informed decisions at the local and national level" (5). Ergo, we must return to knowledge-centered schools, in which the specific content, not merely skills or nebulous standards, to be covered is explicitly stated and the same throughout the nation.
Hirsch, a professed socialist, was been mischaracterized in 1988 as an arch conservative with the publication of his renowned book Cultural Literacy, because his approach did not square with the nascent multiculturalism that was then becoming de rigueur. He argued even then that instilling common foundational knowledge was essential to helping the more challenged socioeconomic quintiles to reach parity. He now demonstrates that the repeated lowering of the bar to suit the lowest common denominator has had deleterious consequences for civic engagement, social cohesion, and basic knowledge, particularly as indicated by PISA scores.
Hirsch points to declines in PISA scores in the U.S., Germany, France, and Sweden when they adopted the "progressive" method of education, centering differentiation and student-centered practices and their recovery upon implementing knowledge-based pedagogy. As one who is particularly sensitive to correlation without causation, I found the evidence presented compelling. [As an aside, other scholars have taken great issue with comparing other nations with questionable reporting ethics with U.S. schools, which have considerable numbers of students whose first language is other than English. See https://www.newgeography.com/content/... ]
What is frankly bizarre here is Hirsch's preoccupation with what he perceives to be the ubiquitous influence of Dewey and touchy-feely student-centered learning when it is axiomatic in education that "Thorndike won," with his emphasis on grades, structures, etc. The standardized testing that governs what is taught in K-12 is all Thorndike. Project-based, inquiry-driven learning is Dewey. How on earth could Hirsch somehow imagine the latter to be prevalent? Where does this idyllic, if misguided, differentiation and extensive choice occur? Not in any of the public schools I visit or read about in EdWeek. Where do they not use the same texts and topics in every classroom?
Hirsch describes the imperative for a common language, by which he means cultural referents. Lacking those, communication breaks down and society along with it. As Founding Chief Academic Officer, I held the responsibility for creating the program of study for a new high school that was diverse in every way and I prioritized instilling cultural capital in the disadvantaged. I wanted to be sure that they were familiar with significant cultural references and literary allusions, that they were able to communicate clearly in standard English, and that they knew how to behave during an interview or business lunch, among many other situations. No one disputes that there is a dominant culture, which the radical Left sees as oppressive and "Whiteness" and the mainstream sees as a neutral statement of fact. To fail to prepare students to function in this society is dereliction of duty.
Hirsch is concerned with lifting the downtrodden and thus, what he is suggesting is more relevant more to the challenged quintiles than the highest. The charter schools that get all the attention for minority students' high test scores, like Success Academy, are like prisons, while progressive schools are attended by the top socioeconomic quintiles, with lax rules. It is instructive here to reference Jean Anyon's work on the ways that socioeconomic class is reproduced in the classroom. Working class schools like Success Academy emphasize obedience and procedure; middle class schools, learning or calculating the right answer; professional class schools, creative expression. In the executive class school, however, analysis and strategy are emphasized. "See the pattern, develop the work plan, find the flaw, present your work with authority." They are training to work in the C-Suite or McKinsey from earliest childhood. Different socioeconomic quintiles are provided different opportunities and levels of knowledge that build on one another.
As noted, Hirsch's focus is the primary school. In the wildly successful high school, I had a vision for project-based education inspired by attending the International Science and Engineering Fair, at which high school students from around the world present their astonishing research. We attempted and succeeded in lifting all boats, not an easy task with offspring of both billionaires and indigent in the same classroom. Everyone completed the same assignment, but some students read peer-reviewed journal articles, while English language learners read texts on their level. Both groups presented sophisticated posters with a hypothesis, methodology, conclusion, and citations they and we were proud of. They learned skills and content. We offered math courses through Multivariable Calculus and Differential Equations. Our students won the $100,000 Siemens Award, ISEF Grand Prize, obtained patents, presented at national conferences as adults (not students), published hundreds of novels, etc. Our first graduating classes were admitted to all the Ivy and Ivy+ universities, including CalTech and MIT. I wrote about my vision and its implementation in Engage!: Setting the Course for Independent Secondary Schools in the 21st Century.
Hirsch is right that schools exist to educate citizens, particularly in the United States, where we do not share inherited features, blood ties, or shared religion. He is right that we need to build cultural capital. He is right that we need to be more specific and clear about the content to be learned in every grade level and standardize it across the nation. I remain at a loss to understand why he seems to think content cannot be learned through projects, students must be physically oriented to the teacher, or that students should not pursue their individual interests within the structure of the specific content. I have empirical evidence to the contrary.
August 21, 2025
Do I think child centered learning is the only correlation to our nations lower literacy rates? No. However, I do think our nation is in need of educational restructuring and insuring that all students are getting equitable treatment and similar content knowledge. With that being said, I’m not sure his exact approach is the way to go either. Specifically, I don’t think common core is our main option for restructuring. I do not claim to know what’s best by any means, but I appreciate the concern for American children’s education in this day and age.
September 7, 2022
Full confession: I abandoned this 20% of the way in. It’s not that I so dislike hearing from someone when I disagree, as it is that I don’t want to spend so much time on disingenuous reasoning.
The arguments from the very beginning are flawed. We have never had a cohesive education in the country. We have always had a blend of cultures and comparing the common knowledge of the educated class of the 18th century and the common knowledge of everyone in the 21st is to compare apples to oranges. His own arguments prove that he knows we never had a common education system when specifying the differences between the North and the South when it came to equality. Then he gets to the peak of our education and unity being in the ‘30s and ‘40s and I really cannot deal with the intellectual dishonesty one has to undertake to argue that the United States was providing and equal opportunity education to its citizens at that time. So straight out of the gate, his nationalist unity argument is flawed.
The second argument that I managed to stick around for was that child-centered learning and project passed learning are bad. He then crafted an argument based on the lack of complete education our teachers are given and a lack of curriculum. I can agree that we need to have consistencies within schools and from class to class over what is taught so that children aren’t suffering through the same content repeatedly or the quality of education varying so widely from classroom to classroom. However, that doesn’t have anything to do with the method of teaching. People, and children are people, do learn better if the 1) care about a subject and 2) are involved in the process of learning than they do if they have someone lecture at them.
So yes, a nationwide curriculum could be good, and by and large the state standards are stupid, but not for the reasons he lays out. Critical thinking skills and social-emotional learning desperately need to be taught. But also maybe include some classic literature that everyone reads whether they like it or not and common culture elements.
Lastly, his correlative events for the decline of American education leave out an awful lot of historical elements regarding the American education system. I dislike listening to an expert who refuses to look at the whole picture.
Bonus fun comment of disdain: his “Polly put the kettle on” nursery rhyme that he uses to illustrate the point of something everyone knows shows his age. I didn’t grow up with that nursery rhyme, nor did my parents. I know it because of watching British children s shows with my own children. And as a man from Memphis, he should know that most kids in the south will hear “tea “ and have no idea why Polly would just now be heating up the water if they are sitting down to have a drink.
The arguments from the very beginning are flawed. We have never had a cohesive education in the country. We have always had a blend of cultures and comparing the common knowledge of the educated class of the 18th century and the common knowledge of everyone in the 21st is to compare apples to oranges. His own arguments prove that he knows we never had a common education system when specifying the differences between the North and the South when it came to equality. Then he gets to the peak of our education and unity being in the ‘30s and ‘40s and I really cannot deal with the intellectual dishonesty one has to undertake to argue that the United States was providing and equal opportunity education to its citizens at that time. So straight out of the gate, his nationalist unity argument is flawed.
The second argument that I managed to stick around for was that child-centered learning and project passed learning are bad. He then crafted an argument based on the lack of complete education our teachers are given and a lack of curriculum. I can agree that we need to have consistencies within schools and from class to class over what is taught so that children aren’t suffering through the same content repeatedly or the quality of education varying so widely from classroom to classroom. However, that doesn’t have anything to do with the method of teaching. People, and children are people, do learn better if the 1) care about a subject and 2) are involved in the process of learning than they do if they have someone lecture at them.
So yes, a nationwide curriculum could be good, and by and large the state standards are stupid, but not for the reasons he lays out. Critical thinking skills and social-emotional learning desperately need to be taught. But also maybe include some classic literature that everyone reads whether they like it or not and common culture elements.
Lastly, his correlative events for the decline of American education leave out an awful lot of historical elements regarding the American education system. I dislike listening to an expert who refuses to look at the whole picture.
Bonus fun comment of disdain: his “Polly put the kettle on” nursery rhyme that he uses to illustrate the point of something everyone knows shows his age. I didn’t grow up with that nursery rhyme, nor did my parents. I know it because of watching British children s shows with my own children. And as a man from Memphis, he should know that most kids in the south will hear “tea “ and have no idea why Polly would just now be heating up the water if they are sitting down to have a drink.
December 12, 2022
This book really made me reflect on my own education growing up. Memories of stations and small group reading projects came rushing back. The author made a compelling argument for content centered learning, but I have a hard time understanding why individualist content centered learning can not exist. The emphasis on patriotism through out education also made me really question the connections between german influence on education and world war II with the education reform experienced in the united states. I also would like to see how 21st century skills can be integrated into content centered learning because I really do value the emphasis on those skills in the current education realm. Overall, this book left me thinking which I find a success.
November 25, 2020
By a local treasure and friend of a friend, E.D. Hirsch, as his farewell magnum opus. I found it a thoroughly convincing defense of "knowledge-based curriculum" over against constructivist and so-called "child-centered" approaches. I'm not versed enough in educational research to know if his basic thesis is as unequivocally data-backed as he claims it is, but the premise is eminently (and unfortunately) plausible: proven effective approaches are not being widely pursued because of ideological opposition by the gatekeepers of our educational training institutions. I encourage all to read and judge for themselves.
gave-up
October 24, 2023DNF. This one holds a record of how early I decided I could not care less. The epigraph was ok, but then the third (!) sentence of Part 1 did the job: "No nation is without failure or shame, but I believe ours to be the best nation on earth".
January 1, 2024
E. D. Hirsch’s “How to Educate a Citizen” is an essential read for any educator truly motivated and determined in teaching students to become the best versions of themselves. Vehemently supporting the use of shared knowledge curriculum, Hirsch presents the clear case that teaching content across a child’s academic career vertically and horizontally improves communication, reading, and writing skills across the board.
Educational theorists, like John Dewey and William Kilpatrick, who embodied a constructivist, individualistic approach in educating children contributed to the decline in quality and effectiveness of American education. This philosophy of education encompassed ‘nature knows best’ principles of romanticism, and effectivity placed the child on a demigod-like pedestal; essentially, the child knows best. This approach promoted the use of whole language, child-centered instruction, and discovery learning. Because all students are different, they have their own interests at heart. The teacher’s role is to facilitate the child’s learning based on those interests.
Hirsch proves the detrimental ineffectiveness of constructivist and individualistic learning. Citing data collected from the Programme for International Student Assessment and referencing educational historians, like Diane Ravitch, Hirsch reveals to the reader how damaging the strict use of child-centered learning is. Children across the same grades learning different things leads to incoherence.
Establishing a common language among children through shared knowledge is key in forming a patriotic, well-informed citizen who knows how to communicate effectively.
“A nation, to become a people, needs to insist on creating a public sphere with shared knowledge that unifies its population, and enables its members to work together, effectively with one another, and feel loyalty to one another. At a minimum, its people need to be bicultural - to feel at home locally and nationally. Unity in diversity has been an American success story.” p. 113.
With the use of a shared knowledge curriculum, students can build a foundation for background knowledge. Skills are dependent upon just that. They depend on complex and fast processing and can only be done if the brain has coded prior complex knowledge. One cannot teach basic skills without that knowledge base. Hirsch’s explanation of the case studies involving chess players and long-term memory supports that. Grandmaster chess players are not successful because they have a large capacity for long term memory. Their experiences with playing chess for extended periods of time is what proves their success.
“A well-stocked, well-selected, well-prepared long-term memory is the secret of expertise.” p. 125.
America was birthed thanks to the events of the Enlightenment, a time of logical reasoning and acknowledgement of human contradictions. These newfound ideas aided individuals to achieve ‘self-transformation.’ The individual could essentially become whatever or whomever they wanted and make something of oneself. One person can hold multiple identities simultaneously. However, a chief one should be the culture that all Americans can be united by equally: basic identify, rights, and privileges.
Utilizing shared knowledge curriculum helps attain this goal – of creating a national cohesion of set values, ideals, and loyalties shared throughout the country. This has been something America’s founders believed in and attempted to create. In short, it is imperative that more knowledge-based curricula with a combination of explicit phonemic instruction is used in today’s American schools. Paired with opportunities for children to develop their individual interests within the umbrella of shared knowledge provides a balance for instruction. Our children deserve the best type of education that will aid in reaching their potential, as well as the potential of our country. This in turn will aid other nations as well.
Educational theorists, like John Dewey and William Kilpatrick, who embodied a constructivist, individualistic approach in educating children contributed to the decline in quality and effectiveness of American education. This philosophy of education encompassed ‘nature knows best’ principles of romanticism, and effectivity placed the child on a demigod-like pedestal; essentially, the child knows best. This approach promoted the use of whole language, child-centered instruction, and discovery learning. Because all students are different, they have their own interests at heart. The teacher’s role is to facilitate the child’s learning based on those interests.
Hirsch proves the detrimental ineffectiveness of constructivist and individualistic learning. Citing data collected from the Programme for International Student Assessment and referencing educational historians, like Diane Ravitch, Hirsch reveals to the reader how damaging the strict use of child-centered learning is. Children across the same grades learning different things leads to incoherence.
Establishing a common language among children through shared knowledge is key in forming a patriotic, well-informed citizen who knows how to communicate effectively.
“A nation, to become a people, needs to insist on creating a public sphere with shared knowledge that unifies its population, and enables its members to work together, effectively with one another, and feel loyalty to one another. At a minimum, its people need to be bicultural - to feel at home locally and nationally. Unity in diversity has been an American success story.” p. 113.
With the use of a shared knowledge curriculum, students can build a foundation for background knowledge. Skills are dependent upon just that. They depend on complex and fast processing and can only be done if the brain has coded prior complex knowledge. One cannot teach basic skills without that knowledge base. Hirsch’s explanation of the case studies involving chess players and long-term memory supports that. Grandmaster chess players are not successful because they have a large capacity for long term memory. Their experiences with playing chess for extended periods of time is what proves their success.
“A well-stocked, well-selected, well-prepared long-term memory is the secret of expertise.” p. 125.
America was birthed thanks to the events of the Enlightenment, a time of logical reasoning and acknowledgement of human contradictions. These newfound ideas aided individuals to achieve ‘self-transformation.’ The individual could essentially become whatever or whomever they wanted and make something of oneself. One person can hold multiple identities simultaneously. However, a chief one should be the culture that all Americans can be united by equally: basic identify, rights, and privileges.
Utilizing shared knowledge curriculum helps attain this goal – of creating a national cohesion of set values, ideals, and loyalties shared throughout the country. This has been something America’s founders believed in and attempted to create. In short, it is imperative that more knowledge-based curricula with a combination of explicit phonemic instruction is used in today’s American schools. Paired with opportunities for children to develop their individual interests within the umbrella of shared knowledge provides a balance for instruction. Our children deserve the best type of education that will aid in reaching their potential, as well as the potential of our country. This in turn will aid other nations as well.
September 14, 2020
My first thought after finishing this book is why I hadn’t heard of this bold, thoughtful, and intelligent approach to our crisis in K-12 education until now. I retired from the classroom in 2009. I can only assume Mr. Hirsch’s reasonable voice was shouted down by multiculturalists and jargon-creators. I would be most eager to teach citizenship and content-rich core curriculum in this manner. My only suggestion would be to add a chapter showing an example of core content lesson and delivery. For this reason I would normally downgrade to 4 stars but the book was so interesting and refreshing that it maintains its 5 star rating. Looks like I have few of Mr. Hirsch’s books left to read.
June 15, 2025
I agree with many of his points. Knowing the philosophy of the education system is important for the educator and the parent to know. I think many just accept that this is they way is is without analyzing the results and comparing them to our personal goals.
I rarely rate books with 5 stars unless I have read them more than twice.
I rarely rate books with 5 stars unless I have read them more than twice.
October 16, 2020
Thoughtful
The only reason for 4 stars was that at times it felt like he was repeating himself multiple times but still a good book and important to read. Although I disagree with some of the points made in this book I agree with theme 100%. As a teacher i couldn’t agree more that we need more shared and common curriculum across the country or even just a district. My only contention is that I think he underestimates the power of the internet creating so much information and material that people now can only choose information they want to hear to believe. There is no common sphere of knowledge because people have choices for everything, news, television, and what school to send their child. It is not just the “child centered” pedagogy that is causing a disconnect with our fellow citizens. It’s only part of it. This is great first call to action for our education system but it also falls on other institutions to work towards a more unifying nation.
The only reason for 4 stars was that at times it felt like he was repeating himself multiple times but still a good book and important to read. Although I disagree with some of the points made in this book I agree with theme 100%. As a teacher i couldn’t agree more that we need more shared and common curriculum across the country or even just a district. My only contention is that I think he underestimates the power of the internet creating so much information and material that people now can only choose information they want to hear to believe. There is no common sphere of knowledge because people have choices for everything, news, television, and what school to send their child. It is not just the “child centered” pedagogy that is causing a disconnect with our fellow citizens. It’s only part of it. This is great first call to action for our education system but it also falls on other institutions to work towards a more unifying nation.
April 11, 2025
Decent ideas. Terrible evidence. Honestly just a no from me.
October 7, 2025
I wish I could give this negative stars with lines like: Without the anchor of commonality in schooling that we largely had up to the 1940s.... Uh, my guy? Schools were still segregated and Title IX was 3 decades away, but sure, the good Ole days of early 20th century education...
December 29, 2020
Although I think this could be more concise and with inclusion of test results besides reading, I found this book engaging and uplifting as a teacher. I'll clarify what I mean by uplifting. High standards and rigorous expectations- that of a content rich schooling agree with me. This is necessary reading for anyone with school-aged children; advocate for a content based education!
American education presently is focused on child centered, individualistic learning at the expense of a common curriculum. Teachers cannot rely on students having learned certain concepts by certain grades. Content based curriculum excites students and results in higher achievement. It is based on building scaled knowledge with detailed planned-out curriculum. It relies on “commonality and coherence of content” (69). In America child-centered public schools are “tens of thousands” and shared-knowledge public schools “are fewer than five thousand”(59). There are “some two thousand core knowledge elementary schools, including regular public schools, charter schools, and private schools”(61). Even schools (looking at Lyles-Crouch School in Virginia and Jeff Litt’s public schools in the South Bronx) with 28-30% of poverty, students demonstrate great academic success with this approach (64). The approach is “an explicit, planned-out curriculum with the topics clearly defined for all”(74) and one decided by experts with public disclosure (174). He champions foremost having knowledgeable teachers, not pedagogical experts and in second position experts on teaching approaches for specific subjects (174). The goal of education according to Hirsch is to create “a better, more durable society” because it is the shared knowledge and shared books that make us feel “comembers of a society”(178).
Hirsch points out that we in America are focused on individualism “But life in society is communal.” Moreover, it is this American obsession with individualism that has led to this downfall in education where we fear “thought control, political control,” lack of choice, “lockstep uniformity, and loss of independence and inventiveness” at the expense of a content rich education (174). And our society and world demand “cooperation” with “shared language-social communication.” He talks about a “shared language” (76) that is common content and promotion of citizenship knowledge. “Democracy and equality demand a rich public sphere where people are able to communicate effectively with one another” (76).
Early on in our country we had uniform reading primers which were used throughout the country, so there was consistency. How do we know we are in crisis? The SAT verbal scores fell sharply at the end of the 1970s and hit a further low in 2012 (23). In 2002 the USA ranked 15th “in terms of the reading ability of its students. By 2015 we ranked 24th!”(23). Why is this bad? “A nation’s reading scores are highly predictive not only of its competence but also of its cohesion, for they indicate whether communication among adults in a nation is effective and widespread. The lower scores reflect a decline in our social, economic, and political competence. We need to make a comeback”(24).
“For successful communication to take place between an author and a reader, they must share background knowledge. When the people of a nation start sharing more background knowledge, their reading scores improve. So do their other verbal communications beyond the written word. A nation’s reading scores thus indicate how generally effective other verbal communications are within the nation. When people communicate well, they can work together effectively, learn new things, and gain a sense of community”(author’s italics 24-25).
Karl W. Deutsch’s book Nationalism and Social Communication (1953) “found that the universal essence of unified nationhood is silently shared background knowledge among its citizens…commonly shared often unspoken background knowledge and values that ultimately enable citizens to understand one another and function effectively. The essence of nationality and ethnicity is what researchers have named a “speech community.” (28-29).
An interviewee about the knowledge-based schooling says that “When you have something that is coherent, cumulative, sequenced, something that kids could tie knowledge onto, it makes for a much more successful experience for struggling kids”(49).
Another interviewee explains how this approach creates a foundation for lifelong learning: “When they’re in the younger grades, they grow this small seed of knowledge, and then as its’s continued; [SIC ,] it cycles up and you’re adding to it. It becomes that whole association and assimilation idea…”(51).
The author mentions how ingrained this child-centered approach is, testifying to it by commonly known slogans, such as “A teacher should be a guide on the side, not a sage on the stage” or “One size does not fit all”(58). In this approach of knowledge-based learning, teachers can rely on their students having common knowledge. This does not mean there is no individual learning (61). Hirsh critiques John Dewey who transformed education’s focus in America to individual focus and a focus on “critical thinking skills” (85) Hirsh says there is “no reliable general expertise of “scientific thinking” or “critical thinking”…(85).
“Knowledge-based schooling seems to make students eager and happy, for ignorance is no friend to creativity”(91).
He mentions how Civics and History lost emphasis. In fact, History was changed to Social Studies (92) and with that, content decreased. Now a “curriculum of “me, my family, my school, my community” now dominates the early grades in American education”(93). He critiques how in grades k-3 the children learn about careers but not history (94).
“Two-thirds of students scored below “proficient” on a national civics assessment administered in 2010. Less than half of eighth graders surveyed knew the purpose of the Bill of Rights; only one in ten had age-appropriate knowledge of the system of checks and balances among our branches of government. These results are the same as the results of the two prior national assessments in civics, conducted in 2006 and 1998”(95).
He points out how essential background knowledge is and how providing this should be part of school’s duty (99). “Anybody who favors the principle of equality should favor a definite shared-knowledge curriculum taught by the most effective means, which is almost always through compelling, explicit modes of instruction”(100).
“The body has a defined blueprint. The mind does not” hence the need for rich content based instruction (105).
Hirsch points out that while we all have multiple identities, what should be central and stressed is the “one that is shared with other citizens, all of whom are equally fellow Americans with the same basic identity, rights, and privileges as our own”(113). Hirsch mentions a seminal experiment that testifies to how knowledge is what builds problem solving skills- i.e. content. There was a study about memory retention of chess moves and positions in chess players. “The higher the player’s rank from novice to grandmaster, the more pieces that were accurately reproduced. The lowest-ranked chess player could barely reproduce 30 percent of the pieces accurately, whereas a grandmaster was always able to reproduce accurately over 90 percent of them”(121). What led to this was the “encyclopedic knowledge of past games, which allowed them to quickly organize their perceptions into meaningful groupings that could then be reconstructed on a blank board”(121). So it was “ingrained, specific factual knowledge, stored in long-term memory, not some general mental skill, that explained the skilled performance”(122).
Hirsch notes that Asia, China, and Japan did not have this steep decrease in verbal scores but foreign countries such as France that adopted our child-centered approach saw severe steep declines in verbal scores. France changed its education system in the 1980s and by 199 had a huge decline. specifically “80 percent in two decades” [percent of standard deviation[ (138). Prior to 1987 France has a standard curriculum. (134). This change in France was due to political pressure of integration seen in 1968 protests fueled by Bourdieu’s 1964 book critiquing French education as undemocratic evidenced according to them by class reflected in choice of university majors (136-137). Germany had low scores in 2000 because each region had its own system; in 2000 the country decided to work together with a “shared-knowledge curriculum” (130) and now Germany ranks 10th in the world (131).Sweden suffered dire results from switching to the child-centered approach and plummeted in under ten years from being “ninth in reading for fifteen-year-olds” to in 2012 27th(132).
“If we do not want to fragment ourselves, if we want America to be unified and productive, we will ensure that our inherent diversity is embraced by a genuine unity of knowledge and sentiment”(156). He claims that a good elementary curriculum should have: coherence, commonality and specify (161). Basically we need the same textbooks across our nation as Singapore does. Hirsch points out that many of our nation’s schoolbooks are not vetted and not even properly edited (165) because the motivation is profit, not excellence. Instead of fearing a national curriculum as a variant of fascism with mind control, we should view knowledge as power; Hirsch points out the kids in Singapore simply know more than Americans (166). “Broad knowledge is widely and democratically spread among all Singaporean students”(166). Hirsch explains that with a “content-rich curriculum, you don’t need “standards”(166). Hirsch states that “textual complexity is not a scientifically valid criterion, because textual complexity may be quite easy to the student when the subject matter is familiar, and textual simplicity quite difficult when the subject matter is unfamiliar.”(166). He calls it an “empty standard” (166).
While giving a nod to high ranking Canada, Hirsch points out that America should “abandon the now-known-to-be-incorrect premise that language proficiency is a natural, inborn skill. It is a knowledge-drenched skill. Each utterance, to be understood, requires specific, unstated background information”(171).
Hirsch ends the book by a call for these educational standards in an attempt to bring the nation together and healing injustices (184). Teachers are citizen makers (187). “Shared, value laden knowledge is the only firm foundation for social communication in a nation. Shared knowledge is the only foundation for competence, for equality of opportunity and the renewal of the American Dream. The liberation of teachers to be citizen makers is to offer them the ultimate in honor and vocational meaningfulness within a democracy—to be the guardians in chief of the American future. Only then will the children in our elementary schools cease to be deprived of their birthright as Americans”(187).
American education presently is focused on child centered, individualistic learning at the expense of a common curriculum. Teachers cannot rely on students having learned certain concepts by certain grades. Content based curriculum excites students and results in higher achievement. It is based on building scaled knowledge with detailed planned-out curriculum. It relies on “commonality and coherence of content” (69). In America child-centered public schools are “tens of thousands” and shared-knowledge public schools “are fewer than five thousand”(59). There are “some two thousand core knowledge elementary schools, including regular public schools, charter schools, and private schools”(61). Even schools (looking at Lyles-Crouch School in Virginia and Jeff Litt’s public schools in the South Bronx) with 28-30% of poverty, students demonstrate great academic success with this approach (64). The approach is “an explicit, planned-out curriculum with the topics clearly defined for all”(74) and one decided by experts with public disclosure (174). He champions foremost having knowledgeable teachers, not pedagogical experts and in second position experts on teaching approaches for specific subjects (174). The goal of education according to Hirsch is to create “a better, more durable society” because it is the shared knowledge and shared books that make us feel “comembers of a society”(178).
Hirsch points out that we in America are focused on individualism “But life in society is communal.” Moreover, it is this American obsession with individualism that has led to this downfall in education where we fear “thought control, political control,” lack of choice, “lockstep uniformity, and loss of independence and inventiveness” at the expense of a content rich education (174). And our society and world demand “cooperation” with “shared language-social communication.” He talks about a “shared language” (76) that is common content and promotion of citizenship knowledge. “Democracy and equality demand a rich public sphere where people are able to communicate effectively with one another” (76).
Early on in our country we had uniform reading primers which were used throughout the country, so there was consistency. How do we know we are in crisis? The SAT verbal scores fell sharply at the end of the 1970s and hit a further low in 2012 (23). In 2002 the USA ranked 15th “in terms of the reading ability of its students. By 2015 we ranked 24th!”(23). Why is this bad? “A nation’s reading scores are highly predictive not only of its competence but also of its cohesion, for they indicate whether communication among adults in a nation is effective and widespread. The lower scores reflect a decline in our social, economic, and political competence. We need to make a comeback”(24).
“For successful communication to take place between an author and a reader, they must share background knowledge. When the people of a nation start sharing more background knowledge, their reading scores improve. So do their other verbal communications beyond the written word. A nation’s reading scores thus indicate how generally effective other verbal communications are within the nation. When people communicate well, they can work together effectively, learn new things, and gain a sense of community”(author’s italics 24-25).
Karl W. Deutsch’s book Nationalism and Social Communication (1953) “found that the universal essence of unified nationhood is silently shared background knowledge among its citizens…commonly shared often unspoken background knowledge and values that ultimately enable citizens to understand one another and function effectively. The essence of nationality and ethnicity is what researchers have named a “speech community.” (28-29).
An interviewee about the knowledge-based schooling says that “When you have something that is coherent, cumulative, sequenced, something that kids could tie knowledge onto, it makes for a much more successful experience for struggling kids”(49).
Another interviewee explains how this approach creates a foundation for lifelong learning: “When they’re in the younger grades, they grow this small seed of knowledge, and then as its’s continued; [SIC ,] it cycles up and you’re adding to it. It becomes that whole association and assimilation idea…”(51).
The author mentions how ingrained this child-centered approach is, testifying to it by commonly known slogans, such as “A teacher should be a guide on the side, not a sage on the stage” or “One size does not fit all”(58). In this approach of knowledge-based learning, teachers can rely on their students having common knowledge. This does not mean there is no individual learning (61). Hirsh critiques John Dewey who transformed education’s focus in America to individual focus and a focus on “critical thinking skills” (85) Hirsh says there is “no reliable general expertise of “scientific thinking” or “critical thinking”…(85).
“Knowledge-based schooling seems to make students eager and happy, for ignorance is no friend to creativity”(91).
He mentions how Civics and History lost emphasis. In fact, History was changed to Social Studies (92) and with that, content decreased. Now a “curriculum of “me, my family, my school, my community” now dominates the early grades in American education”(93). He critiques how in grades k-3 the children learn about careers but not history (94).
“Two-thirds of students scored below “proficient” on a national civics assessment administered in 2010. Less than half of eighth graders surveyed knew the purpose of the Bill of Rights; only one in ten had age-appropriate knowledge of the system of checks and balances among our branches of government. These results are the same as the results of the two prior national assessments in civics, conducted in 2006 and 1998”(95).
He points out how essential background knowledge is and how providing this should be part of school’s duty (99). “Anybody who favors the principle of equality should favor a definite shared-knowledge curriculum taught by the most effective means, which is almost always through compelling, explicit modes of instruction”(100).
“The body has a defined blueprint. The mind does not” hence the need for rich content based instruction (105).
Hirsch points out that while we all have multiple identities, what should be central and stressed is the “one that is shared with other citizens, all of whom are equally fellow Americans with the same basic identity, rights, and privileges as our own”(113). Hirsch mentions a seminal experiment that testifies to how knowledge is what builds problem solving skills- i.e. content. There was a study about memory retention of chess moves and positions in chess players. “The higher the player’s rank from novice to grandmaster, the more pieces that were accurately reproduced. The lowest-ranked chess player could barely reproduce 30 percent of the pieces accurately, whereas a grandmaster was always able to reproduce accurately over 90 percent of them”(121). What led to this was the “encyclopedic knowledge of past games, which allowed them to quickly organize their perceptions into meaningful groupings that could then be reconstructed on a blank board”(121). So it was “ingrained, specific factual knowledge, stored in long-term memory, not some general mental skill, that explained the skilled performance”(122).
Hirsch notes that Asia, China, and Japan did not have this steep decrease in verbal scores but foreign countries such as France that adopted our child-centered approach saw severe steep declines in verbal scores. France changed its education system in the 1980s and by 199 had a huge decline. specifically “80 percent in two decades” [percent of standard deviation[ (138). Prior to 1987 France has a standard curriculum. (134). This change in France was due to political pressure of integration seen in 1968 protests fueled by Bourdieu’s 1964 book critiquing French education as undemocratic evidenced according to them by class reflected in choice of university majors (136-137). Germany had low scores in 2000 because each region had its own system; in 2000 the country decided to work together with a “shared-knowledge curriculum” (130) and now Germany ranks 10th in the world (131).Sweden suffered dire results from switching to the child-centered approach and plummeted in under ten years from being “ninth in reading for fifteen-year-olds” to in 2012 27th(132).
“If we do not want to fragment ourselves, if we want America to be unified and productive, we will ensure that our inherent diversity is embraced by a genuine unity of knowledge and sentiment”(156). He claims that a good elementary curriculum should have: coherence, commonality and specify (161). Basically we need the same textbooks across our nation as Singapore does. Hirsch points out that many of our nation’s schoolbooks are not vetted and not even properly edited (165) because the motivation is profit, not excellence. Instead of fearing a national curriculum as a variant of fascism with mind control, we should view knowledge as power; Hirsch points out the kids in Singapore simply know more than Americans (166). “Broad knowledge is widely and democratically spread among all Singaporean students”(166). Hirsch explains that with a “content-rich curriculum, you don’t need “standards”(166). Hirsch states that “textual complexity is not a scientifically valid criterion, because textual complexity may be quite easy to the student when the subject matter is familiar, and textual simplicity quite difficult when the subject matter is unfamiliar.”(166). He calls it an “empty standard” (166).
While giving a nod to high ranking Canada, Hirsch points out that America should “abandon the now-known-to-be-incorrect premise that language proficiency is a natural, inborn skill. It is a knowledge-drenched skill. Each utterance, to be understood, requires specific, unstated background information”(171).
Hirsch ends the book by a call for these educational standards in an attempt to bring the nation together and healing injustices (184). Teachers are citizen makers (187). “Shared, value laden knowledge is the only firm foundation for social communication in a nation. Shared knowledge is the only foundation for competence, for equality of opportunity and the renewal of the American Dream. The liberation of teachers to be citizen makers is to offer them the ultimate in honor and vocational meaningfulness within a democracy—to be the guardians in chief of the American future. Only then will the children in our elementary schools cease to be deprived of their birthright as Americans”(187).
August 20, 2021
Hirsch makes a convincing case for universal "content-based," civic-centered education, particularly in the elementary grades, as a remedy for a fragmenting American society and culture.
September 8, 2020
Working in a school, I hear all of the time that the schools are teaching to the State testing for funding. This is the reasoning for why our schools are falling short, or is it? The author of this book lays out the case for how our schools are failing students by "dumbing down" material in order to teach using techniques that do not work. The author shows how our students are not gaining the important skills needed to work with others and come together to solve issues. This was a really eye-opening read and one that I will be recommending to my coworkers.
February 4, 2024
I am not a fan of politicizing education - which is much of the driving force behind the premise of ED Hirsch’s education reform known as Common Core. I struggle with the idea of one body deciding the curriculum for all students across the U.S. - especially reguarding very specific topics. Because of this huge emphasis on government and politics, I considered DNFing this book. I’m glad I didn’t.
I don’t agree with his politics and, as with most educational philosophies, Hirsch fails to consider that there are more issues at play than the one he is trumpeting, however, I do agree with many of his underlying views about education itself. My frame of reference is interesting as I have a lot of background in the classroom, but I now focus primarily on homeschooling and small-group style learning.
I see such a huge difference in academic growth with unit study, topical-style learning. When families (or co-ops, or classrooms, or schools, or districts) can come together and learn the same things at different levels, the depth of the learning is absolutely immense. So much individualization can happen and it's even possible for students to explore the same topic from different perspectives. There is no comparison to the depth of learning that happens in this type of environment. The idea of every classroom in America learning the same thing on the same day - especially with a highly political agenda - is terrifying to me. It misses some of the nuance of good education.
There is something to be said of unified learning, but it makes more sense to me to say - these are the things that are learned in the K-2 years, the 3-5, and the 6-8, and working those out to be consistent within a district or even a state, but to say every 2nd grader has to learn about bugs in March is a bit much. By having some flexibility, we can hook learning to the world around us. If, for example the Shakespeare Festival is putting on a play being studied in April, it might make sense to do that unit then instead of January when it might be scheduled. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree, that learning within content areas is key to bringing learning alive and giving children the opportunity to grow in critical thinking and develop a basic index on knowledge that is key to success. Where I struggle is swinging the pendulum the other direction where everything is dictated so strictly that there is no room for exploration beyond that which is required.
I also didn't appreciate that he didn't fully address a lot of the criticisms of his philosophy - many of which I found to be quite valid. He mostly just said - well, they are wrong. Every philosophy, especially in the world of education, will have flaws. If the major proponents aren't willing to take those seriously and at least try to address them, to understand where those raising the red flags might be coming from, then I have some concerns.
I’m glad I read this book, It did make me think more about knowledge-based learning, and I will be mulling over the ideas for a while. I agree with the author that there are very real advantages to this type of learning. I don’t however, agree with his politics or strict implementation of this philosophy - I felt some very strong propaganda type vibes. But hey - I can disagree with him on a lot of things and still give this a 3 star rating - I gained some knowledge and have hooks on which to hang more. ;)
I don’t agree with his politics and, as with most educational philosophies, Hirsch fails to consider that there are more issues at play than the one he is trumpeting, however, I do agree with many of his underlying views about education itself. My frame of reference is interesting as I have a lot of background in the classroom, but I now focus primarily on homeschooling and small-group style learning.
I see such a huge difference in academic growth with unit study, topical-style learning. When families (or co-ops, or classrooms, or schools, or districts) can come together and learn the same things at different levels, the depth of the learning is absolutely immense. So much individualization can happen and it's even possible for students to explore the same topic from different perspectives. There is no comparison to the depth of learning that happens in this type of environment. The idea of every classroom in America learning the same thing on the same day - especially with a highly political agenda - is terrifying to me. It misses some of the nuance of good education.
There is something to be said of unified learning, but it makes more sense to me to say - these are the things that are learned in the K-2 years, the 3-5, and the 6-8, and working those out to be consistent within a district or even a state, but to say every 2nd grader has to learn about bugs in March is a bit much. By having some flexibility, we can hook learning to the world around us. If, for example the Shakespeare Festival is putting on a play being studied in April, it might make sense to do that unit then instead of January when it might be scheduled. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree, that learning within content areas is key to bringing learning alive and giving children the opportunity to grow in critical thinking and develop a basic index on knowledge that is key to success. Where I struggle is swinging the pendulum the other direction where everything is dictated so strictly that there is no room for exploration beyond that which is required.
I also didn't appreciate that he didn't fully address a lot of the criticisms of his philosophy - many of which I found to be quite valid. He mostly just said - well, they are wrong. Every philosophy, especially in the world of education, will have flaws. If the major proponents aren't willing to take those seriously and at least try to address them, to understand where those raising the red flags might be coming from, then I have some concerns.
I’m glad I read this book, It did make me think more about knowledge-based learning, and I will be mulling over the ideas for a while. I agree with the author that there are very real advantages to this type of learning. I don’t however, agree with his politics or strict implementation of this philosophy - I felt some very strong propaganda type vibes. But hey - I can disagree with him on a lot of things and still give this a 3 star rating - I gained some knowledge and have hooks on which to hang more. ;)
January 19, 2022
LOTS OF THOUGHTS that can really only be articulated irl. But I will share some major ones.
First of all, this is a FANTASTIC support for common knowledge curriculums, something I’m also very much in support of. Those pieces were well researched, backed, and written. Natalie Wexler would be proud.
What I couldn’t get behind is a lot of forced nationalism and patriotism. I was extremely turned off by the first part of this book because of the dripping push of nationalism, but was encouraged to keep reading and I’m glad I did.
Long story short, I absolutely believe you can achieve a common knowledge curriculum without shoving American propaganda down people’s throats.
First of all, this is a FANTASTIC support for common knowledge curriculums, something I’m also very much in support of. Those pieces were well researched, backed, and written. Natalie Wexler would be proud.
What I couldn’t get behind is a lot of forced nationalism and patriotism. I was extremely turned off by the first part of this book because of the dripping push of nationalism, but was encouraged to keep reading and I’m glad I did.
Long story short, I absolutely believe you can achieve a common knowledge curriculum without shoving American propaganda down people’s throats.
March 10, 2021
I enjoyed being challenged by Hirsch's work and confess to seeing the truth to some of his claims. Others, however, were muddied by a lack of clear causation arguments. I fully believe that one central cause if the decline of our country is the sorry state of our education system, along with cultural bankruptcy. I believe some shift towards rebalancing the known element of education would be helpful, but it is unlikely to be the single cure all to solve the crushing decline of American values and unity.
Read
October 2, 2020Provides some statistics and many anecdotes of how a content-based education is superior to a progressivist child-centered education. The author maintains that skills are best learned through culturally-based content and that such an education will help unify a democracy while still recognizing diversity. Somewhat repetitive, but does provide an approach on how to raise our PISA scores and help our nation be able to communicate better.
February 6, 2021
I was prepared to completely disagree with virtually all of Hirsch’s claims, but I was actually pushed to rethink several of my assumptions about education and how to best support students and teachers.
May 27, 2021
'The point of view that dominates elementary education today is individualistic. But life in adult society is communal.'
#DeZinVanHetBoek #ThePointOfTheBook
#DeZinVanHetBoek #ThePointOfTheBook
October 17, 2024
Previously I told my brother that the one thing I thought would help save the country was enforcing school choice across the country because having well-educated young adults is crucial for the country's continued success and that has been slipping significantly over the past couple of decades. I had thought that our public schools were beyond saving based upon my son's experience there, but this book may have changed my mind. Mr. Hirsch lays out a well-argued viewpoint that the shift to child-centered education, especially in elementary schools, has created a generation (or two) of children who don't have a good background in the common knowledge that underlies our society. Chief among the arguments is that there are no general skills, such as problem solving, rather there are specific skills that grow from increasing knowledge of a subject. The focus on general skills, and the lack of focus on garnering knowledge, hinders future development of thinking skills. He backs up these assertions using learning results generally with countries that have different teaching philosophies and with specific examples of school that took a different approach.
There are two main consequences of this focus on child focused learning. One is that a teacher's job is much more complicated because there isn't a core set of knowledge that he or she can assume the whole class holds so lessons need to be multiple. Second is that children don't receive an education that is builds upon earlier learnings when they move from class to class. Thus, they never develop deep skills in any particular area(s). A side effect is that students are often bored and unexcited by school.
The alternative approach that Mr. Hirsch champions is the core knowledge curriculum, i.e., a structured set of lessons that build up over the elementary school classes and which impart specific knowledge that is reinforced over time and which the student will find valuable when participating in society. Students in schools that follow this philosophy have achieved better immediate results, have done better in later grades, and have demonstrated increased interest in learning. This teaching philosophy can, and has been adopted in public schools, often with the most dramatic results in schools in poorer school districts. Mr. Hirsch postulates that disadvantaged students gain the most from this approach because they start with the greatest gap in this common knowledge.
When I was reading I was wondering how Mr. Hirsch would explain the success of schools, such as Montesorri, that seem to use the child centered learning approach (from what I've read), but he never does. If I had to make a guess it would be that students who are already knowledgeable or who have some additional support, can succeed in those programs, however that would not be the case for all students. I think that implementing a core knowledge focused curriculum could achieve the results we need and return the United States schooling system to a high place in the world. This won't be easy though and it will take the will of many, many people and parents to get the school system to change. Here's to hoping that this book can be a small catalyst to that effort.
There are two main consequences of this focus on child focused learning. One is that a teacher's job is much more complicated because there isn't a core set of knowledge that he or she can assume the whole class holds so lessons need to be multiple. Second is that children don't receive an education that is builds upon earlier learnings when they move from class to class. Thus, they never develop deep skills in any particular area(s). A side effect is that students are often bored and unexcited by school.
The alternative approach that Mr. Hirsch champions is the core knowledge curriculum, i.e., a structured set of lessons that build up over the elementary school classes and which impart specific knowledge that is reinforced over time and which the student will find valuable when participating in society. Students in schools that follow this philosophy have achieved better immediate results, have done better in later grades, and have demonstrated increased interest in learning. This teaching philosophy can, and has been adopted in public schools, often with the most dramatic results in schools in poorer school districts. Mr. Hirsch postulates that disadvantaged students gain the most from this approach because they start with the greatest gap in this common knowledge.
When I was reading I was wondering how Mr. Hirsch would explain the success of schools, such as Montesorri, that seem to use the child centered learning approach (from what I've read), but he never does. If I had to make a guess it would be that students who are already knowledgeable or who have some additional support, can succeed in those programs, however that would not be the case for all students. I think that implementing a core knowledge focused curriculum could achieve the results we need and return the United States schooling system to a high place in the world. This won't be easy though and it will take the will of many, many people and parents to get the school system to change. Here's to hoping that this book can be a small catalyst to that effort.
July 1, 2025
On the face of it, Hirsch does make an interesting argument about the meaningful part of culture in language/literacy education. On the other hand, the lack of critical reflection makes Hirsch's proposed changes to literacy education dangerous.
I also have the sinking suspicion that the figures, numbers and anecdotes that Hirsch waves about to support his argument are perhaps manipulated. Whether this manipulation is due to conscious or unconscious bias, I couldn't say, but it does feel extraordinarily convenient that all the evidence Hirsch brings to bear shows no flaws in a knowledge approach and shows only folly in a skills approach to literacy.
A huge issue with Hirsch's argument is his idea that being a good citizen is belief in and dedication to a patriotic civil religion. That Hirsch casually includes Judeo-Christian ethics and history in his argument for civil religion, but without discussing the problematic evangelical and fundamentalist sects that have also played a role in the shaping of US American culture is deeply problematic.
On the whole, Hirsch does not interrogate the potential and manifest negative impacts of imposing a very white, middle class, able-bodied perspective situated in very traditional gender norms on an incredibly diverse populace. And no, it is not enough to include a special lesson about Martin Luther King Jr. or a "Native American" appreciation unit and call it a day. Quite arguably in contemporary society, it probably is MORE important for students to understand the rhetoric infused into Tupac's construction of "THUG LIFE" (the hate you give little infants f***s everyone) than it is for them to understand the implications of Antigone.
I could go on and one for days about the issues of championing literature and cultural knowledge favored by one particular identity in a plural society, but for the sake a brevity, it seems disingenuous to throw around statistics about state testing and the performance of schools that are predominantly charter schools (infamous for their civil rights abuses of students on IEPs or with disabilities) without controlling for a number of other variables that contribute to student performance such as class size, parental involvement, and exposure of students to adverse childhood experiences.
While this review is already lengthy, I want to address Hirsch's argument that it is not important to teach critical thinking skills. That clearly shows that Hirsch either has not run a classroom in a very long time, if ever, and is fataly out of touch with the on-the-ground issues concerning child development and education in the 21st century. To think that any skill, much less critical thinking skills along with its manifestations in media literacy and digital citizenship, does not need to be explicitly taught, is to put yourself as either someone that has never taught, or someone that desires a populace with lower critical reasoning skills that will thus be easier to control and be more vulnerable to authoritarianism. Either way it's a bit of an issue in Hirsch's argument.
I also have the sinking suspicion that the figures, numbers and anecdotes that Hirsch waves about to support his argument are perhaps manipulated. Whether this manipulation is due to conscious or unconscious bias, I couldn't say, but it does feel extraordinarily convenient that all the evidence Hirsch brings to bear shows no flaws in a knowledge approach and shows only folly in a skills approach to literacy.
A huge issue with Hirsch's argument is his idea that being a good citizen is belief in and dedication to a patriotic civil religion. That Hirsch casually includes Judeo-Christian ethics and history in his argument for civil religion, but without discussing the problematic evangelical and fundamentalist sects that have also played a role in the shaping of US American culture is deeply problematic.
On the whole, Hirsch does not interrogate the potential and manifest negative impacts of imposing a very white, middle class, able-bodied perspective situated in very traditional gender norms on an incredibly diverse populace. And no, it is not enough to include a special lesson about Martin Luther King Jr. or a "Native American" appreciation unit and call it a day. Quite arguably in contemporary society, it probably is MORE important for students to understand the rhetoric infused into Tupac's construction of "THUG LIFE" (the hate you give little infants f***s everyone) than it is for them to understand the implications of Antigone.
I could go on and one for days about the issues of championing literature and cultural knowledge favored by one particular identity in a plural society, but for the sake a brevity, it seems disingenuous to throw around statistics about state testing and the performance of schools that are predominantly charter schools (infamous for their civil rights abuses of students on IEPs or with disabilities) without controlling for a number of other variables that contribute to student performance such as class size, parental involvement, and exposure of students to adverse childhood experiences.
While this review is already lengthy, I want to address Hirsch's argument that it is not important to teach critical thinking skills. That clearly shows that Hirsch either has not run a classroom in a very long time, if ever, and is fataly out of touch with the on-the-ground issues concerning child development and education in the 21st century. To think that any skill, much less critical thinking skills along with its manifestations in media literacy and digital citizenship, does not need to be explicitly taught, is to put yourself as either someone that has never taught, or someone that desires a populace with lower critical reasoning skills that will thus be easier to control and be more vulnerable to authoritarianism. Either way it's a bit of an issue in Hirsch's argument.
February 5, 2023
I had a mixed, but ultimately muted, reaction to this book. Hirsch argues for a more content-focused approach to education, arguging that all the rheotrical focus on building up criticial skills doesn't deliever, and all the verbage given to inclusion and equality hasn't led to more equitable results. This much seemed reasonable to me, as I've long thought/suspected that the road to Why goes through What. (By that, I mean a person must have a decent factual background on a matter to engage in meaningful critical analysis of it). Frankly, the recent pandemic where people said they were skeptical of vaccines and intended to "do their own research" in hrose de-wormer really makes me double down on my skepticism of de-prioritizing info on a field if someone can instead claim to engage in critical thinking skills.
So I found myself nodding my head at the book's core point - yet I still found myself underwhelmed here. In part, that's because while the book is very short (under 200 pages of content) it still felt repetitive. Also, the evidence leaned too much too often on anedoctal, and when Hirsch did present stats, they felt awkwardly presented. (Evidence was also poorly organized. Early on, he gives a chapter that's basically a lengthy recap of conversations he had with two teachers before next chapter getting some solid dataa to back up his ideas. Man, give the data first and let the converations flesh it out). Also, he argues that focusing more on content will lead to more patriotism, which he fears the nation is lacking on. I don't have an issue with him trying to support patriotism,b ut I'm amaznig that living in this coutnry he thinks a really problem with America is a lack of publicly displayeed patriotism. Finally, while I did nod my head at many of the book's ideas, I also found myself nodding off. There are wallpaper patterns more interesting.
Not a back book and I guess I'm glad I read it, but it's nothing spectacular.
So I found myself nodding my head at the book's core point - yet I still found myself underwhelmed here. In part, that's because while the book is very short (under 200 pages of content) it still felt repetitive. Also, the evidence leaned too much too often on anedoctal, and when Hirsch did present stats, they felt awkwardly presented. (Evidence was also poorly organized. Early on, he gives a chapter that's basically a lengthy recap of conversations he had with two teachers before next chapter getting some solid dataa to back up his ideas. Man, give the data first and let the converations flesh it out). Also, he argues that focusing more on content will lead to more patriotism, which he fears the nation is lacking on. I don't have an issue with him trying to support patriotism,b ut I'm amaznig that living in this coutnry he thinks a really problem with America is a lack of publicly displayeed patriotism. Finally, while I did nod my head at many of the book's ideas, I also found myself nodding off. There are wallpaper patterns more interesting.
Not a back book and I guess I'm glad I read it, but it's nothing spectacular.
May 29, 2024
While I was not convinced by a few of the peripheral arguments in Hirsch's work, I was entirely persuaded by its thesis.
I came to this book after finding myself, over the course of several years, increasingly skeptical of the methods by which we as a culture teach and learn. This skepticism came to a head in the last few months. After a sort of Cartesian crisis, I started believing that the pillars upon which we have built our academic institutions—"creative thought," "critical thinking," "communication skills," etc.—are not only less important than more "conservative" visions of a common cannon, they don't even exist.
Similarly, I was growing increasingly convinced that lectures are, despite the conventional wisdom, superior to the faux-Socratic seminars that dominate humanities education. A bit of holy outrage, a bit of moral indignation, started to creep into the voids opened up by my total lack of faith.
This is an extremely lonely position to take in contemporary American academia. Fortunately, after doing a little digging around on the internet, I found a review of this book which lead me to Hirsch and his foundation. You can imagine my delight when I discovered, through first the review and then the book, that the overwhelming weight of scientific, social, and historical data is strongly in opposition to the status quo (and also in opposition to Hegel! Bonus points for that!). This book therefore did for me exactly the thing that academics need to do more of, and that I was lamenting the absence of: it used massive sets of experimental and historical data to give soundness to the theories that usually drift about the Ivory Tower entirely unmoored.
I usually refrain from repeating the cliché of "this book is a must-read," but if you are in the business of teaching, if you are a student, if you are training to be a teacher, or if you have kids or grandkids, then you've just got to read this book.
I came to this book after finding myself, over the course of several years, increasingly skeptical of the methods by which we as a culture teach and learn. This skepticism came to a head in the last few months. After a sort of Cartesian crisis, I started believing that the pillars upon which we have built our academic institutions—"creative thought," "critical thinking," "communication skills," etc.—are not only less important than more "conservative" visions of a common cannon, they don't even exist.
Similarly, I was growing increasingly convinced that lectures are, despite the conventional wisdom, superior to the faux-Socratic seminars that dominate humanities education. A bit of holy outrage, a bit of moral indignation, started to creep into the voids opened up by my total lack of faith.
This is an extremely lonely position to take in contemporary American academia. Fortunately, after doing a little digging around on the internet, I found a review of this book which lead me to Hirsch and his foundation. You can imagine my delight when I discovered, through first the review and then the book, that the overwhelming weight of scientific, social, and historical data is strongly in opposition to the status quo (and also in opposition to Hegel! Bonus points for that!). This book therefore did for me exactly the thing that academics need to do more of, and that I was lamenting the absence of: it used massive sets of experimental and historical data to give soundness to the theories that usually drift about the Ivory Tower entirely unmoored.
I usually refrain from repeating the cliché of "this book is a must-read," but if you are in the business of teaching, if you are a student, if you are training to be a teacher, or if you have kids or grandkids, then you've just got to read this book.
March 3, 2024
In this brief, relevant, and surprisingly comprehensible work, E.D. Hirsch explains the purposes of public education, why it no longer works in America, and how to get back on track. He advocated in the main for a return to a stable "shared-knowledge" model of public education and opposed the ever-shifting "child-centered" model. He argues a citizenry can only form a stable union when everyone shares the same background knowledge and therefore can communicate, debate, legislate, and pursue a nation's goals with peace and clarity.
Hirsch defends his view citing the successes of early American education, the failures of the progressive models and backs up his claims with stats ranging from local school districts to international trends over the past 4 generations.
While this topic is of the utmost importance and well-written with the latest scholarship, there is one large piece missing (though easily remedied within a private or homeschool setting). That missing piece is a shared spiritual knowledge. Hirsch favors "a reverence for law" as a civic religion, replacing other institutional religions within public education.
I believe that this view allows the tail to wag the dog. The peace, stability, and civil rights we enjoy in America do not flow out from a sense of patriotism, but instead find their origin within the teachings of the Bible, teachings that transcend all cultures and nationalities thus paving the way for a united nation of disparate ethnic groups. Although Hirsch does not cover this in his book, I believe it is no coincidence that the decline of American public schools coincides with the forcible removal of God, prayer, and the Bible from Public schools in the 20th century.
Hirsch defends his view citing the successes of early American education, the failures of the progressive models and backs up his claims with stats ranging from local school districts to international trends over the past 4 generations.
While this topic is of the utmost importance and well-written with the latest scholarship, there is one large piece missing (though easily remedied within a private or homeschool setting). That missing piece is a shared spiritual knowledge. Hirsch favors "a reverence for law" as a civic religion, replacing other institutional religions within public education.
I believe that this view allows the tail to wag the dog. The peace, stability, and civil rights we enjoy in America do not flow out from a sense of patriotism, but instead find their origin within the teachings of the Bible, teachings that transcend all cultures and nationalities thus paving the way for a united nation of disparate ethnic groups. Although Hirsch does not cover this in his book, I believe it is no coincidence that the decline of American public schools coincides with the forcible removal of God, prayer, and the Bible from Public schools in the 20th century.
January 6, 2025
This is a book that straddles the line between a polemic and advertising. I did not realize when I started the book that Hirsch is more than just an academic, but is in fact prominent in several organizations that promote the kinds of schooling that this book argues for. Now, there's nothing wrong with believing deeply in something and writing books in support of it, but it does color the kind of book you get.
How to Educate a Citizen takes a lot of positions that I'm predisposed to buy - I agree that a deep mesh of context makes learning anything easier and more meaningful, and I also agree that creating some baseline of knowledge, particularly around communication and society is critical to the function of a society, particularly one as large and diverse as the USA. With that said, Hirsch's position seems to be that if everyone saw things his way, everything would be easy and children would be well educated and successful. I find that difficult to believe, all the more so because of how cavalierly the book asserts that to be the case.
However, the way that Hirsch treats the rise of skills based education feels pretty hollow to me. I am a layperson, completely ignorant of education theory and history, so I (ironically) don't have a lot of context for his version of events, but they seem pretty dismissive and uncharitable. I would be very interested to read a well written counter essay.
Ultimately, I think the great weakness of this book is that it does not take its opponents seriously. The best non fiction takes counter arguments seriously and you finish the book feeling that you understand the best counterarguments and why they are wrong. This book makes its own arguments well and persuasively, but did not leave me with that feeling.
How to Educate a Citizen takes a lot of positions that I'm predisposed to buy - I agree that a deep mesh of context makes learning anything easier and more meaningful, and I also agree that creating some baseline of knowledge, particularly around communication and society is critical to the function of a society, particularly one as large and diverse as the USA. With that said, Hirsch's position seems to be that if everyone saw things his way, everything would be easy and children would be well educated and successful. I find that difficult to believe, all the more so because of how cavalierly the book asserts that to be the case.
However, the way that Hirsch treats the rise of skills based education feels pretty hollow to me. I am a layperson, completely ignorant of education theory and history, so I (ironically) don't have a lot of context for his version of events, but they seem pretty dismissive and uncharitable. I would be very interested to read a well written counter essay.
Ultimately, I think the great weakness of this book is that it does not take its opponents seriously. The best non fiction takes counter arguments seriously and you finish the book feeling that you understand the best counterarguments and why they are wrong. This book makes its own arguments well and persuasively, but did not leave me with that feeling.
September 2, 2023
Fact: this is a really bad book. Good thing Hirsch doesn't believe in the general skill of critical thinking, because if it did exist, anyone who had that skill would say this was a terrible book. Especially if they had a deep base of general knowledge.
This book is less about education than it is about schooling in the service of nationalism. Of course, schooling has been a deliberately chosen tool for states to indoctrinate the youth, destroy alternative cultures, and attempt to spread loyalty and nationalism for at least two centuries, so Hirsch is not new in that position. But I believe that any scholar pushing a schooling-for-the-fatherland argument, even though I disagree with it, should avoid absurdities. Hirsch’s opening paragraph starts from the ridiculous claim that American society is “high-achieving, fair, and literate.” He then spends much of the book insisting that America is not high-achieving or highly literate, but it used to be, which is even more ridiculous. It only gets worse from there. And like many of his loudest supporters, he sees fairness in America the way only a privileged white man can see it.
The education arguments are less odious than his schooling for nationalism arguments, but they are similarly disingenuous and still odious. And what he is pushing would make schooling all the more crushing for millions of students. To think you can remove emotion and motivation from the learning process, and just push 5,000 lessons on kids over the period of 15,000 hours of schooling, to create an educated, cohesive, country loving populace is laughable.
I just don't know how anyone interested in "facts" could read this book and not constantly roll their eyes at all of the objectively false statements peppered throughout this book.
Deserves zero stars but that wasn't an option.
This book is less about education than it is about schooling in the service of nationalism. Of course, schooling has been a deliberately chosen tool for states to indoctrinate the youth, destroy alternative cultures, and attempt to spread loyalty and nationalism for at least two centuries, so Hirsch is not new in that position. But I believe that any scholar pushing a schooling-for-the-fatherland argument, even though I disagree with it, should avoid absurdities. Hirsch’s opening paragraph starts from the ridiculous claim that American society is “high-achieving, fair, and literate.” He then spends much of the book insisting that America is not high-achieving or highly literate, but it used to be, which is even more ridiculous. It only gets worse from there. And like many of his loudest supporters, he sees fairness in America the way only a privileged white man can see it.
The education arguments are less odious than his schooling for nationalism arguments, but they are similarly disingenuous and still odious. And what he is pushing would make schooling all the more crushing for millions of students. To think you can remove emotion and motivation from the learning process, and just push 5,000 lessons on kids over the period of 15,000 hours of schooling, to create an educated, cohesive, country loving populace is laughable.
I just don't know how anyone interested in "facts" could read this book and not constantly roll their eyes at all of the objectively false statements peppered throughout this book.
Deserves zero stars but that wasn't an option.
February 21, 2024
Appreciate the call for a more knowledge-based elementary curriculum, something sorely needed for social studies. Yet his vision is incomplete and fails to fully appreciate some of the nuances needed for effective instruction. Nemeses like discovery learning are described with strawman arguments to be knocked down but overly optimistic predictions about the benefits of using the CKLA curriculum. Frequently leveled criticisms of Hirsch regarding his perspective of non-white people come through as well. He places an absolute premium on using schools to build an American identity without problematizing the inequality with race, gender, class, etc. that was part of our founding. The ideas contained in this book are useful, to a point, but this is not the complete and complex vision for education that is needed. There is truth to his critiques of too much focus on the skills-based approach, particularly in ELA, of disconnects between some schools of education and the practical impact/applicability of their ideas, and of the vacuousness of the typical early social studies standards framed by expanding horizons. But also, his prescription fails to imagine a base of knowledge that blends what is with what could be, the place for establishing relevancy for this content with students, and student-centered pedagogy that balances meeting students where they are with helping them along to a shared understanding of common knowledge.
November 13, 2020
This is a challenging book which is focused on K-12 education but has some stunning comments on the role of education in society. E.D. Hirsch has made some amazing contributions to thoughts about schooling including his book of several decades ago on cultural literacy and the need for a shared canon.
In this book - Hirsch makes a couple of interesting points -
1) He makes a strong case that K-12 needs to have a determined effort to have a content rich rather than child centered learning. He makes the point that the content curriculum binds us together.
2) The common content structure yields great benefits in the ability of citizens to relate to each other (and therefore communicate on common notions) and also in student performance.
3) At the same time he makes the point that ethnicity is not an immutable force. As Toni Morrison pointed out at one time - hyphenations are not applicable to Whites. AND people can easily have multiple identities in opposition to idiots like Robin DiAngelo.
HE makes a strong case for the errors of thinkers like John Dewey and even Piaget. Education is not an inherent trait - rather it is a set of learned behaviors where the adults should direct the process.
The applicability of this book is well beyond Hirsch's expressed intention of discussing primary schooling.
In this book - Hirsch makes a couple of interesting points -
1) He makes a strong case that K-12 needs to have a determined effort to have a content rich rather than child centered learning. He makes the point that the content curriculum binds us together.
2) The common content structure yields great benefits in the ability of citizens to relate to each other (and therefore communicate on common notions) and also in student performance.
3) At the same time he makes the point that ethnicity is not an immutable force. As Toni Morrison pointed out at one time - hyphenations are not applicable to Whites. AND people can easily have multiple identities in opposition to idiots like Robin DiAngelo.
HE makes a strong case for the errors of thinkers like John Dewey and even Piaget. Education is not an inherent trait - rather it is a set of learned behaviors where the adults should direct the process.
The applicability of this book is well beyond Hirsch's expressed intention of discussing primary schooling.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews