The Knowledge Deficit: Closing the Shocking Education Gap for American Children – Why Curriculum Matters: Essential Tools for Parents and Teachers to Build Reading Comprehension

by E.D. Hirsch Jr.

The Knowledge Deficit illuminates the real issue in education today -- without an effective curriculum, American students are losing the global education race. In this persuasive book, the esteemed education critic, activist, and best-selling author E.D. Hirsch, Jr., shows that although schools are teaching the mechanics of reading, they fail to convey the knowledge needed for the more complex and essential skill of reading comprehension. Hirsch corrects popular misconceptions about hot issues in education, such as standardized testing, and takes to task educators' claims that they are powerless to overcome class differences. Ultimately, this essential book gives parents and teachers specific tools for enhancing children's abilities to fully understand what they read.

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Parenting, Teaching, Politics, American History, American

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

E. D. Hirsch, Jr. is the founder and chairman of the Core Knowledge Foundation and professor emeritus of education and humanities at the University of Virginia. He is the author of several acclaimed books on education in which he has persisted as a voice of reason making the case for equality of educational opportunity.

A highly regarded literary critic and professor of English earlier in his career, Dr. Hirsch recalls being “shocked into education reform” while doing research on written composition at a pair of colleges in Virginia. During these studies he observed that a student’s ability to comprehend a passage was determined in part by the relative readability of the text, but even more by the student’s background knowledge.

This research led Dr. Hirsch to develop his concept of cultural literacy—the idea that reading comprehension requires not just formal decoding skills but also wide-ranging background knowledge. In 1986 he founded the Core Knowledge Foundation. A year later he published Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, which remained at the top of the New York Times bestseller list for more than six months. His subsequent books include The Schools We Need, The Knowledge Deficit, The Making of Americans, and most recently, How to Educate a Citizen: The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation.

In How to Educate a Citizen (September, 2020), E.D. Hirsch continues the conversation he began thirty years ago with his classic bestseller Cultural Literacy, urging America’s public schools, particularly in Preschool – Grade 8, to educate our children using common, coherent and sequenced curricula to help heal and preserve the nation.

Reviews

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having spent many years in the classroom as a very successful Language Arts teacher despite not having a degree in education, but one in English Literature, I agree with this author's thesis that reading cannot be taught in a vacuum, so much so that I want to hand out copies of the book to every teacher at my son's elementary school. Hirsch's book explains why it is, that despite tons of monies and decades of educational "research", that American students literacy and reading scores, no matter socioeconomic background, go DOWN as they get older when compared to children of other nations. He explains that so very much time is used teaching the basics of reading, the phonics, and most importantly the "strategies" of reading comprehension, that our children are left with a huge knowledge gap about the world they live in. That gap of general knowledge makes reading comprehension a struggle for kids who don't have a well-rounded background of knowledge that they've learned on their own from home, as all subjects other than reading and math are put on the back burner in early elementary school these days. Amen, Mr. Hirsch, A-effing-Men. Reading comprehension strategies make me want to pull my hair out. Kids comprehend well when they have appropriate background knowledge of a topic and so they GET what they're reading about, not because we drill them on their abilities to predict and infer all day, every day.

Having worked (and hated having worked) in a public school for only one year, I found that private schools are much more willing to embrace a different take on how to teach English/Language Arts, as long as the students are progressing adequately. Guess what? They progress better when teachers actually teach about the subject matter and vocabulary of the books (yes, BOOKS, not "passages", not "sample texts" written precisely for purposes of testing and/or not offending anyone, nor requiring any thought) as the class reads the books. They progress more when they learn from an integrated curriculum, and can understand the context and background of the material they're reading. They learn better when you can make reading interesting, fun, relevant, and when they are actually picking up new KNOWLEDGE about the world beyond their own lives. You can't expect a child to understand Number the Stars in fourth grade when they've never learned about World War II, know nothing about Europe, history, the Holocaust, etc. By not expecting children in kindergarten, first, second, and third grade to learn, even if they can't write about or read about at a high level, any real knowledge in social studies, science, music, art, physical education, etc, we are doing a grave disservice to our kids, who are capable of learning a TON of information between the ages of 5-9, before handing them a book and wondering why they don't "get it" automatically since they are perfectly able to decode the words. Education NEEDS to be based on not just measurable skills of reading and math, but on KNOWLEDGE as a whole.

My favorite quote: "It is true that many American teachers are ill-informed about the subjects they teach, and it is also true that this reduces their productivity in the classroom. But this is not because of their inherent laziness or native incompetence. It is because they are subjected to antifact, how-to ideas during their training. American education schools consider it their job mainly to provide teachers with naturalistic and formalist ideologies." Word, Mr. Hirsch. I took two education courses in college-- they were both huge wastes of time where I learned a lot of pedagogical terminology that had exactly zero impact on anyone being able to be a successful teacher.

So, yes, four stars, not five, because the book is dry, and if you aren't interested in education, particularly reading/literacy education, you'd hate it. That said, if you're a teacher or want to be a teacher? You should read this book-- it is important and it is RIGHT.

[Kamal · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was plagued by Henny-Penny-ism. Despite all the multiple proclamations that the sky is falling, I remain unconvinced. Hirsch is quick to dismiss any theories about poverty, racism and class being strong determinants of a child's performance in traditional school systems. However, one doesn't hear of an illiteracy epidemic in private schools. In the end, Hirsch's blind-spot for social injustice only belies his advocacy of middle-class norms as the be-all and end-all of any educational project. The last time I checked, democracy didn't mean all citizens adopting middle-class mores, which seems to be an underlying assumption of this book. This book candy-coats a very ugly sentiment: "Damn them for being so poor and stupid!" Hirsch then has the audacity to claim that his ideal reforms will help fix social injustices. This, in my opinion, is dubious. I had high expectations for this book, and it did not deliver.

[Hava · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished reading The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them last week, and then started The Knowledge Deficit right after that. I think that reading the two, one right after the other, is part of why I am only giving this book four stars. Much of what he said in The Schools We Need was repeated in Knowledge Deficit. When I say repeated, I mean word-for-word repeated - there were two whole pages that were a cut and paste without even a word different between the two books. That got to be a bit old after a while.

However, there were portions that were completely new; you cannot just read one and then think you've read them both. He does cover some different ideas in the two books, so if you're really interested in learning more about his ideas on education, you will want to read both books.

I think that the Core Knowledge style of school is by far the most logical set-up that I've seen, and when I start my own charter school, I absolutely intend on it being a Core Knowledge school. So I had no ideological disputes with the book - just a complaint that at times, it got to be quite boring if you had already read The Schools We Need. At least don't read them one right after another...

[Ng · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was more of an essay than a book. Two main arguments.

1. Modern American education is paralysingly dominated by one ideology with roots in the Romantic movement - that learning should be natural (a la Emile). There's also what he calls the formalist ideology, that children should learn skills, not facts. I already knew from teaching GP that the latter was nonsense, but I hadn't realised how much I took the naturalist ideology for granted.

2. Reading proficiency requires not only decoding skills (phonics) but also background knowledge. You need to understand about 90% of the words in order to guess the other 10%. My father was getting at this long ago when he said everyone should know the Greek myths and the Bible, but I hadn't thought about it.

Very convincing and easy to read, but having seen the summaries of some of his other books, I can see why some reviews thought this one was redundant. Am off to read them now.

[Jason Anger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great overview of the importance of knowledge to a well-rounded education, particularly for reading comprehension. The final chapter and appendix covers ground that Hirsch hasn’t paid particular attention to in the past, yet are indispensable pieces of the larger mosaic he pieces together in previous works.

[Lola Seflipa · Rating 5 out of 5]

El libro defiende que para mejorar la comprensión lectora de nuestros jóvenes se deben trabajar unos contenidos comunes que amplíen los conocimientos enciclopédicos del alumnado.

Me resuena muchísimo, porque es la pieza que faltaba en un proyecto sobre el que escribí hace unos años.

Maravilla.

[Lindsey · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a complicated relationship with this guy wherein I agree with everything he's saying until he starts groveling for the bipartisan appeal

[Erik Akre · Rating 3 out of 5]

What an interesting book! I must honor E.D. Hirsch for his passionate and convincing argument. I must say that I'm both with him and against him.

His point is that when American children learn, they don't really learn facts about the world, or at least not very many. He says that there are certain things that people must simply know, in order to be functioning members of society, both nationally and globally. He argues that without knowledge of these facts, students in our education system will fail to be truly successful in the world, and the United States will fail to be a strong competitive country on the globe. Cultural literacy is the term for this knowledge set.

At the same time, he argues that these facts are fairly proscribed. There are definite things that everyone should know, and these things are determined (by someone?). In other words, everyone needs to know these things in order to be a fully valid human being. And so everyone should be taught these facts in school, regardless of interest level or developmental abilities. (Really developmental needs are not a high priority for Hirsch.) Everyone should be culturally literate in the same way, which leads to an obvious question...

Who decides what the content of this standard curriculum is? It scares me to think of some distant committee making these decisions, based on their own biases of course, for an entire standardized nation of children (and by extension, adults). It sounds a little like fascism to me.

Yet there are things that we might know to experience the world more fully. Perhaps it's just that first we need to be motivated to know anything at all, and then learn what we learn as we experience the world meaningfully thereby.

[travelgirlut · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was hard work, so much so that I just couldn't bring myself to keep going. The author is trying too hard to make himself sound authoritative and intelligent and in the end it just comes off sounding pompous and preachy. I want to see the facts and be told how I can fix things, not have to wade through all your big words to get there.

On the other hand, I don't disagree with his premise. There is good info to be had here if you want to wade through to find it.

I think Why Don't Students Like School? covers the same type of questions in an easier to understand way and answers them quite succinctly. I actually started reading it first before heading into The Knowledge Deficit, and that may have tainted it for me. I'll be heading back there for the answers to all that ails our school systems.

[LNae · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is focused on the reading gap mainly and hits many good and important hits. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE matters, a lot, a lot. A LOT. Students who know what the passage is talking about will do much better on the test, which is something we know (or you should know if you work with children). Sadly, it is very difficult to build up background knowledge especially if students hear fewer words and sentences at home and move during the school year. There is an argument for a common core- and Hirsch Jr. view of what a common core is much better than what we have today.

[Talbot Hook · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Knowledge Deficit is a short but important read. It has two basic arguments: 1) There are two fallacies at the root of a lot of bad teaching in our schools; and 2) We are off our rockers when it comes to teaching reading and comprehension. To expand on the first point, Hirsch looks a bit into Romanticism and Formalism. Romanticism, springing from the literary movement that respects everything stemming from nature while denigrating that which is artificial, has put the idea in the heads of many Americans that certain things are learned "naturally." Speech is one of these, it seems. Reading, however, is not. Children do not, just by floating through their environment, learn to read. We know this to some extent, as we teach phonics and decoding in the early grades; but then we assume that children will naturally come to understand what they read having these simple tools in hand. In short, we teach children how to decipher words but not necessarily how to understand that which they've deciphered. So that's the flaw with Romanticism.

As to Formalism, Hirsch argues that well-meaning teachers (led by crackpot ideas) put too much focus on hollow reading "strategies" (e.g., main idea, questioning the author, or compare/contrast) that can hypothetically be used across all subjects and ideas. Of course, the passages used to practice these reading strategies are empty and belligerently boring, largely written by authors that no one's ever heard of (because they mean little and offend no one). This comes at the expense of using time in school to teach kids about the world in various way; and this failure to build adequate background knowledge is the primary reason that reading scores fall off in 4th grade. At that point, kids aren't just decoding language, they have to understand what they decode. Some studies show that to understand a sentence or thought you need to understand >90% of it, so why are we shocked when students can't do this? They don't have the requisite background knowledge. Of course, we could dumb down reading tasks to the most basic, literal level, but that's more a disservice than a solution. The real solution, per Hirsch, is to teach an absolute metric ton of knowledge content grade by grade. Of course, he has something to sell you, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. He seems more genuine than a snake-oil salesman. (Unlike many in education, he actually seems to care about excellence and equity.)

The biggest criticisms of this book seem threefold: 1) That Hirsch underplays the influences of poverty, racism, and classism; 2) That the book is "hard" and doesn't offer up many solutions except for the adoption of Hirsch's own brainchild, "Core Knowledge"; and 3) That any notion of "cultural literacy" is elitist, hegemonic, and anti-multicultural. To address these criticisms point by point: 1) He doesn't underplay these, though he knows that these things aren't in the purview of the school to address; rather, he recognizes that schools who focus on knowledge tend to lessen the achievement gaps between student populations; 2) The book is fairly easy reading (if one has the relevant content knowledge) and the solution is clearly and repetitively stated. I don't know how you could miss it; 3) "Cultural literacy" seems elitist and classist and racist, but it actually isn't, in any way. For those wondering about the elite cabal creating these standards . . . what curriculum isn't created by a small group of people that build their values into what is to be taught and learned? That doesn't make it classist or elitist. Also, what is the intention of this curriculum? Well, in short: equity. To give children what they actually need to achieve success under admittedly dominant-culture values. To make sure that some students aren't further disadvantaged by not having a rich knowledge-environment at home. How else can schools themselves better society? They don't have that many levers to pull. And unless we totally revamp what success looks like in society (and any notion of success where literacy isn't a factor is highly dubious to me), it seems we need to change instruction. Teach processes, sure, but remember you can't process something in a vacuum. Processing takes knowledge.

Read the book yourself and see what you think.

[Katie McPhee · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars.

This was an interesting look at why he believed kids in mainstream schools are falling further and further behind in reading comprehension, despite improvements in deciding skills and a return to phonics- based instruction. How can children comprehend that for which they have no frame of reference.
By not giving kids "rote knowledge" they don't have enough information to make the necessary leaps to comprehension.

It's an unspoken promotion for classical education wherein children are given "pegs " of information in their young years in a broad variety of topics so they can use those later to build further knowledge.

It touches on his previous work, Cultural Literacy, where he decries the loss of cultural knowledge that was once ubiquitous among literate Americans. An example: I've read Little Women 3 times, but only in my fourth reading did I understand and enjoy the chapter on Pickwick Papers - because I had finally read Dickens. These touch points are culturally important to understanding other literary works, conversations with older generations, and until rather recently newspapers, television shows, etc. But this is becoming a review of a different work by Hirsch.

[William Schram · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Knowledge Deficit by E. D. Hirsch Jr. has an interesting title and tagline. If you feel that American Children need to buckle down and learn more things then this book might be for you.

While it seems as though the book will focus on schools in general, it seems as though it mainly concentrates on reading comprehension. This book does not merely decry the problems inherent in our public school system, it also discusses ways to correct these issues. The problem might be that there are far too many solutions and not one unifying idea. I mean this in general, not in reference to the book itself.

The book is quite short, checking in at under 200 pages. It uses a crisp and lucid style to convey its ideas. It explores some alternatives and discusses the idea of “Natural” Learning, which was somewhat surprising when I read it. I suppose if you think that language is a gift from the heavens rather than an invention of man then you could make such a mistake, but I don’t know.

Other than that, the book was pretty good.

[Ksmoker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and short read on the reasons behind the major gap in student reading achievement between economically advantaged and disadvantaged students. To be good readers, students need to know content and lots of it, not simply know reading strategies. He lost me with his idea that a core of common content should be taught across the country in the early grades to combat our woefully low test scores and churning out of unprepared citizens. Who would decide this content?

A good read for teachers and parents alike.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important book

Hirsch here goes into so much about what is wrong in American education. But perhaps more importantly his ideas give insight into our current political climate and the increasingly divisive culture wars in our country.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading is not just a skill; it depends on core knowledge. Definitely a revolutionary text since most policies focus on teaching reading skills believing knowledge develops naturally. This country could stand a bit of commonality among states’ curricula.

[Jenny Olechowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book with incredibly relevant, useful and reassuring studies...thank you!

[Audrey Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intriguing. His ideas make a lot of sense, but I wish he had addressed second language education.

[Mary Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful information about how teaching theories are being implemented in the classroom. Food for thought.

[Barbara Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very insightful. Helpful for the class I was taking.

[Kylene Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting

[Liz Cohen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Critical book if you work in education.

[Chase Parsley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an extremely important book that all educators should read. It makes the case that American students are knowledge-poor, knowledge in our schools is under attack (in the guise of "skills"), and that background knowledge turns out to be extremely important in life. Reading, writing, and listening are all cognitively related, and they require the individual to have an extensive foundation of basic knowledge. This is why a hearty, well-rounded education of literature, social studies, science, and the arts is extremely important. Too often these subjects are dismissed in favor of "skill building" activities. As a history teacher, I agree. More and more, the knowledge of social studies is downplayed, and the emphasis on skills and English skills is high.

More controversially, Hirsch argues that the romantic notion of allowing teachers and students to choose what they should learn is harmful. This isn't meant to be totalitarian, but the idea is that all students need a common foundation of knowledge to read, write, talk, and listen effectively in society. Very interesting and highly recommended.

[Joy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although there is some repetition from previous books, as other reviewers have pointed out, sometimes repetition is necessary to get the point across. I believe he did this purposely. His argument remains the same across his books- that the American school system needs to establish some common curriculum content and sequencing in order to allow students to gradually acquire knowledge. That said, the main points of the book are different than his others. In this book, Hirsch explains how our current education system rides on the beliefs of Romanticism, that learning naturally unfolds. If this were true, then there would be no need for formal education, nor explicit instruction. It is true that some learning happens through implicit instruction. Hirsch explains how vocabulary develops through exposure to rich content and communication.

When considering how reading develops, he positions himself in a moderate position, recognizing the need for phonics instruction and grammar while still considering situated meaning and rich material. For Hirsch, one thing that can be removed from school instruction is the endless string of skill-based strategies, because he believes reading isn't about a skill, but rather it is about comprehension. We need to focus on developing background knowledge for that which is presumed to be self-evident.

He also points out how testing is necessary, but that the standards don't match what is tested. How can they, when they are so generalized and vague? He points out that teachers are left in an uncomfortable predicament, "The tests are coming! We don't know what topics the children will be asked to read about. The tests will probe reading comprehension skills, so we must teach those skills!" (94). When nobody is sure what content will be on the examinations, and the examinations determine funding, there is no other reasonable approach to reading instruction than to view it as skills based. He points out that if standards were clear and tied to the tests, then schools would be able to fulfill the requirements for meeting AYP.

Beyond the accountability issue, there is also the issue of a common culture. In order to trust each other, we need to share some things in common. He argues for somewhere between 40 to 60 percent. This would allow more than enough room for diversity and local tradition. But, he does question the concept of local tradition. Local districts don't have specific standards listed either. They want local control, then leave it to the teacher to decide what to teach. For Hirsch, this is a problem.

As a high school teacher who has had 96% success on standardized tests, I am still critical of these tests. I don't mind standards, but I do wish they were more specific. I find myself playing a guessing game about what the state really wants. I'm not sure, so I try to find a combination of texts that I believe will build a diverse background. Combining selections from the textbook and things that I bring to the table, I do the best I can. But, my students are capable of so much more. They are hungry for information, and get excited when they see connections to their world or to other subjects. They like to be challenged, as long as the task is within their reach. There are many things wrong with our school system. One of them is that we do need a more coherent curriculum. Social Studies and English should work hand in hand to build background knowledge based on classical literature, history, and American values.

The problem is the "nuts and bolts" question. What are we going to teach? Who will decide? In Cultural Literacy, Hirsch provided his list of suggestions. Harold Bloom also has a list of suggestions. Looking at both those lists, I agree with some choices, but not others. I would like to see a convention put together with the purpose of determining the list. Let a combination of people be represented. Make sure to include teachers in addition to professors, business leaders and politicians. Include leaders of minority and majority interest groups. Get the discussion started.

[Selim Tlili · Rating 3 out of 5]

A few years ago I was in a professional development course and I was given this beauty of drivel from the Assistant Principal:
"The time of teachers being the 'sage on stage' is over. We need teachers to be the 'guide on the side' with the understanding that if we give students the proper ingredients they will be able to bake their own wonderful 'knowledge bread'"
While I wouldn't have said anything out loud about that pile of nonsense I do wish I had read this book back then. ED Hirsch managed to articulate so many of my criticisms about educational policy and how we teach children in public schools.

Our collective educational policy has seemingly decided that developing content related knowledge and the teaching of "mere facts" is anathema to true teaching. I have always thought this is short sighted thinking; knowledge should grow and the greater amounts of knowledge you accumulate and retain the greater expertise you can develop.
Hirsch argues, convincingly in my opinion, for the development of some "common knowledge criterion" that students should attain throughout each grade. Given student mobility and the gap between educational opportunities between children of the rich and poor, a good case can be made for requiring certain specific content to be presented to student at specific grades. This content should essentially be our shared cultural knowledge that one is expected to know, but not explicitly stated, if one reads current events.
I would rate this 3.5 stars if I could. My main criticism with this book is that Hirsch belabor his point excessively. I understood his essential
Point about how teaching reading content strategies instead of teaching interesting and engaging literature is a mistake but Hirsch needed four of his six chapters to express this relatively simple point. I think it would have been more valuable if Hirsch had expanded upon his idea of what he believes should be within this "common knowledge core" of education.
Hirsch also gives short shrift to issues of poverty and inadequate funding. I agree that throwing money at a school won't solve any problems but it strikes me as ludicrous for someone to say that a kid who goes to an an ancient urban public school taught mostly by brand new teachers should somehow get the same educational outcomes as kids who go to a suburban high school with brand new facilities, a golf team and well paid teachers, many whom have achieved terminal degrees. The idea that money doesn't matter much in the educational gap just doesn't sit right.
Overall this book will be of minimal interest to anyone who isn't in education. I definitely wish more administrators, superintendents and educational policy makers took the ideas articulated by Hirsch very seriously.

[John King · Rating 5 out of 5]

My son is in fourth grade. This analysis really hit home.

The only thing I dispute is at 45% of public school children change their residences it every year. That seems too high, but maybe it's not too high in some places.

[Donny · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had some difficulty determining the method by which to rate this particular book, as three stars seemed too mild and four stars too dramatic for the personal reaction it elicited. Before beginning the first chapter, I ventured to its Goodreads page and spent a few moments perusing reviewers' comments on the contents. One review described the presentation of his theory to be too pompous, masking what he had to say with the big words employed to say it, and I did not find this to be the case; neither did I find anything to logically justify the harsh censureship of another review, which accused him of turning a deliberately blind eye to the effect social injustice has on educational accomplishment and levelling derision at the "poor and stupid" lower class.

Not having had any prior exposure to this author's philosophy or books, the repetition was helpful; however, he does indeed repeat himself, coming at various statements from slightly different angles. His writing style is clear, his reasoning cogent, and his theory — that contemporary American education is facilitating illiteracy by a misplaced educational methodology — fascinating. I read with notebook open and pen in hand, jotting passages into it for later reference, and, barring a more technical chapter which I did not process quite so easily as the rest of the book, for reason of sheer indifference to the technicalities of the topic being covered therein (the details of standardized testing), found much that I was grateful to have encountered. In consideration of its usefulness and the impact it has had on my perception of education, both contemporary and historical, I have given it four stars, realizing that another, more advanced, reader might find it to be less beneficial.

[Brian Ayres · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an educator and someone who has spent 22 of the last 26 years in some form of public education, I was always reluctant to submit to a national curriculum, believing in "local control" of schools. But after reading E.D. Hirsch's latest critique of our knowledge gap in public schools, consider me a convert. Hirsch makes the case for core knowledge in the early grades to establish an even base for an ever-mobile student population to have stability in their schooling.

Basing his ideas on modern cognitive psychology, Hirsch explains matter-of-factly how a focus on strategies, particularly reading comprehension, cannot come without content knowledge. Students cannot comprehend what they do not understand. Hirsch uses a great example to illustrate his point. Take this sentence: "Jones sacrificed and knocked in a run." A literate person can comprehend all the words in this sentence, but without knowing the context of baseball, one would not be able to understand the complete picture and "get it."

Hirsch provides the sound argument for what most of us see and experience. Education cannot be process-based but knowledge-based. How else do we expect students to excel in the "knowledge" economy?

[Gayle · Rating 2 out of 5]

E. D. Hirsch, Jr., author of the best-selling Cultural Literacy and founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation, takes a steely look at the failure of the American education system to teach a generation of children to read at a proficient level. His culprits are not the beleaguered teachers or the underfunded schools, but the educational philosophy that separates reading comprehension from content. He insists that in order to read with understanding, one must have a basic understanding of the body of knowledge upon which our society is based.

That just about covers it; it's a small book, and Hirsch eruditely restates his position from different podia in each chapter, each time taking another incremental step towards his final position: that the Core Knowledge Foundation has figured out what the knowledge is that children need to know at each stage, and that information is available to schools, teachers, even parents.

I can't disagree with his position, and I won't delve into the minutiae. If you're serious about literacy for children whose lives you influence, you may find this interesting.

[Yingtai · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was more of an essay than a book. Two main arguments.

1. Modern American education is paralysingly dominated by one ideology with roots in the Romantic movement - that learning should be natural (a la Emile). There's also what he calls the formalist ideology, that children should learn skills, not facts. I already knew from teaching GP that the latter was nonsense, but I hadn't realised how much I took the naturalist ideology for granted.

2. Reading proficiency requires not only decoding skills (phonics) but also background knowledge. You need to understand about 90% of the words in order to guess the other 10%. My father was getting at this long ago when he said everyone should know the Greek myths and the Bible, but I hadn't thought about it.

Very convincing and easy to read, but having seen the summaries of some of his other books, I can see why some reviews thought this one was redundant. Am off to read them now.