Whose Core Knowledge, and What Sort of Citizens?

Core Knowledge proponent E.D. Hirsch wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes recently, Reading Test Dummies, that argues the bubble-test-bashing engaged in from Obama to most classroom teachers is misguided. Hirsch argues that the problem with the tests is that they're not aligned with content standards in the core curriculum, which forces teachers to teach test-taking strategies instead of content. If the tests were aligned with the "knowledge" dictated by literature, science, history, geography and arts curriculum standards, Hirsch argues, then teachers would be free to teach content instead of test-taking. They'd know that test scores would measure the "knowledge" imparted in the content, and that teaching that knowledge would raise test scores. It sounds sensible enough, until we ask such questions as, "Knowledge of what? From whose perspective? In whose interests?"

Hirsch is silent on the value of questions like this, and it's that silence that suggests the "Core Knowledge" approach needs a healthy supplement of critical thinking for it to have more merit. Below are some places in his op-ed where he could have shown that he values critical thinking, but didn't:

"Empty 'reading strategies'": Hirsch seems to categorically dismiss all instruction in “reading strategies” as "empty." (You see a lot of similar blanket statements about 21st Century Skills on the Core Knowledge blog too.) To be fair, he may mean this characterization only in the context of drilling students with practice tests - and if that's the case, that's fine. But as a teacher and as a reader, I know two things about this topic: 1) it doesn't take a lot of time to carry out the basic "reading strategies" of skimming the table of contents, section headings, emphasized words, and graphics in a chapter, first and last paragraphs, and so forth, in order to activate readers' schemata and give them a sense of the organization of a text, and 2) that schemata and sense of organization is helpful. Hirsch's op-ed implies that this is a time-consuming process to teach and to do, but it really doesn't have to be at all.

Pre-reading strategies can make texts more interesting, too, when we throw a couple of critical thinking angles into the mix: "What information do you expect to find in here? What points of view?" These simple questions before reading can make the "knowledge" much more interesting if we discover as we read, for example, that there is no mention in a text on the Colonial Period that many whites crossed over to the Native Americans, while few Native Americans did the same to the whites, or no mention in a section on the Founding Fathers that many of them were slave-owners. Suddenly we have something to think about: why does the textbook omit these things?

One Core Knowledge fits all: When Hirsch writes,

Better-defined standards in history, science, literature and the arts combined with knowledge-based reading tests would encourage the schools to conceive the whole course of study as a reading curriculum — exactly what a good knowledge-based curriculum should be. Schools would also begin to use classroom time more productively, which is important for all students and critically so for disadvantaged ones.

--it gets tricky. If done according to local, not national, standards in history and literature - I have no problem with national science and math standards - then this may be a good idea. But if he's talking national history and literature standards, that's more problematic. It deprives local schools of tailoring their curriculum to their student bodies and communities. An all-girls' school, a majority Latino or African-American or rural school - they're not likely to be best served by a single "core knowledge" or set of "core texts" in history and literature. To impose one is likely to turn them off of reading, even as they might gain in knowledge that raises their test scores.

Hirsch strongly suggest he is thinking of such one-size-fits-all "knowledge" when he writes, (click "Read more" for the rest...)

Teachers and students might begin to demand content standards that are more specific than, say, this third grade standard from Ohio: “Compare the cultural practices and products of the local community with those of other communities in Ohio, the United States and countries of the world.” It would be far more useful to set out what exactly children should learn about the 13 colonies or Paul Revere’s ride.

How is knowing about Paul Revere's ride more valuable and relevant than learning about local and distant communities?

Hirsch concludes,

Better-defined standards in history, science, literature and the arts combined with knowledge-based reading tests would encourage the schools to conceive the whole course of study as a reading curriculum — exactly what a good knowledge-based curriculum should be. Schools would also begin to use classroom time more productively, which is important for all students and critically so for disadvantaged ones.

Reform of standards and tests needs to begin in the earliest grades. Knowledge and vocabulary are plants of slow organic growth. By eighth grade, after the cumulative benefits of a more coherent curriculum and more productive tests, students would begin to score much better on all reading exams, including those that aren’t based on a school curriculum. More important, they would be prepared to be capable, productive citizens.

If we can talk leaving high school content under the control of local teachers, not dictated by national content tests, then maybe  - high school teachers could fill in the silences left by the national(istic) 3-8 standards, teach race, gender, and class-based perspectives in history that almost surely wouldn't be covered earlier.

But a white male-privileged narrative of history that I suspect Hirsch advocates is also unfair to those very disadvantaged students Hirsch claims will benefit from his model. It excludes all who don't fit that profile. Above all, I'd rather see thinking-based reading tests that ask about point of view, bias, audience, omissions, etc - that ask students to think about what they read, rather than simply remember it as "knowledge." Without that critical stance towards what is decided as "knowledge worth having," Hirsch's ideal of a "good knowledge-based curriculum" seems an oxymoron. Can we talk a "knowledge-and-thinking-based curriculum" instead?

Because without critical thinking about what's read, we're not "capable and productive citizens" - at best, we're creating "capable, compliant workers." We can do better than that.

Photo by shapeshift