What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed Educational Theories
In Why Knowledge Matters , E. D. Hirsch, Jr., presents evidence from cognitive science, sociology, and education history to further the argument for a knowledge-based elementary curriculum.
Influential scholar Hirsch, author of The Knowledge Deficit , asserts that a carefully planned curriculum that imparts communal knowledge is essential in achieving one of the most fundamental aims and objectives of preparing students for lifelong success. Hirsch examines historical and contemporary evidence from the United States and other nations, including France, and affirms that a knowledge-based approach has improved both achievement and equity in schools where it has been instituted.
In contrast, educational change of the past several decades in the United States has endorsed a skills-based approach, founded on, Hirsch points out, many incorrect assumptions about child development and how children learn. He recommends new policies that are better aligned with our current understanding of neuroscience, developmental psychology, and social science.
The book focuses on six persistent problems that merit the attention of contemporary education the over-testing of students in the name of educational accountability; the scapegoating of teachers; the fadeout of preschool gains; the narrowing of the curriculum to crowd out history, geography, science, literature, and the arts; the achievement gap between demographic groups; and the reliance on standards, such as the Common Core State Standards, that are not linked to a rigorous curriculum.
Why Knowledge Matters makes a clear case for educational innovation and introduces a new generation of American educators to Hirsch’s astute and passionate analysis.
Influential scholar Hirsch, author of The Knowledge Deficit , asserts that a carefully planned curriculum that imparts communal knowledge is essential in achieving one of the most fundamental aims and objectives of preparing students for lifelong success. Hirsch examines historical and contemporary evidence from the United States and other nations, including France, and affirms that a knowledge-based approach has improved both achievement and equity in schools where it has been instituted.
In contrast, educational change of the past several decades in the United States has endorsed a skills-based approach, founded on, Hirsch points out, many incorrect assumptions about child development and how children learn. He recommends new policies that are better aligned with our current understanding of neuroscience, developmental psychology, and social science.
The book focuses on six persistent problems that merit the attention of contemporary education the over-testing of students in the name of educational accountability; the scapegoating of teachers; the fadeout of preschool gains; the narrowing of the curriculum to crowd out history, geography, science, literature, and the arts; the achievement gap between demographic groups; and the reliance on standards, such as the Common Core State Standards, that are not linked to a rigorous curriculum.
Why Knowledge Matters makes a clear case for educational innovation and introduces a new generation of American educators to Hirsch’s astute and passionate analysis.
280 pages, Paperback
Published September 20, 2016
68 people are currently reading
1,471 people want to read
About the author
E.D. Hirsch Jr.
81Ìýbooks106ÌýfollowersE. D. Hirsch, Jr. is the founder and chairman of the Core Knowledge Foundation and professor emeritus of education and humanities at the University of Virginia. He is the author of several acclaimed books on education in which he has persisted as a voice of reason making the case for equality of educational opportunity.
A highly regarded literary critic and professor of English earlier in his career, Dr. Hirsch recalls being “shocked into education reform� while doing research on written composition at a pair of colleges in Virginia. During these studies he observed that a student’s ability to comprehend a passage was determined in part by the relative readability of the text, but even more by the student’s background knowledge.
This research led Dr. Hirsch to develop his concept of cultural literacy—the idea that reading comprehension requires not just formal decoding skills but also wide-ranging background knowledge. In 1986 he founded the Core Knowledge Foundation. A year later he published Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, which remained at the top of the New York Times bestseller list for more than six months. His subsequent books include The Schools We Need, The Knowledge Deficit, The Making of Americans, and most recently, How to Educate a Citizen: The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation.
In How to Educate a Citizen (September, 2020), E.D. Hirsch continues the conversation he began thirty years ago with his classic bestseller Cultural Literacy, urging America’s public schools, particularly in Preschool � Grade 8, to educate our children using common, coherent and sequenced curricula to help heal and preserve the nation.
A highly regarded literary critic and professor of English earlier in his career, Dr. Hirsch recalls being “shocked into education reform� while doing research on written composition at a pair of colleges in Virginia. During these studies he observed that a student’s ability to comprehend a passage was determined in part by the relative readability of the text, but even more by the student’s background knowledge.
This research led Dr. Hirsch to develop his concept of cultural literacy—the idea that reading comprehension requires not just formal decoding skills but also wide-ranging background knowledge. In 1986 he founded the Core Knowledge Foundation. A year later he published Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, which remained at the top of the New York Times bestseller list for more than six months. His subsequent books include The Schools We Need, The Knowledge Deficit, The Making of Americans, and most recently, How to Educate a Citizen: The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation.
In How to Educate a Citizen (September, 2020), E.D. Hirsch continues the conversation he began thirty years ago with his classic bestseller Cultural Literacy, urging America’s public schools, particularly in Preschool � Grade 8, to educate our children using common, coherent and sequenced curricula to help heal and preserve the nation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
July 15, 2018
So many conversations in education focus on skill development - creative thinking, critical thinking, comprehension, metacognition, etc. These are important but only if we keep our sights on the importance of knowledge development.
Hirsch makes it very clear that skills like reading comprehension and critical thinking cannot take place without core knowledge. He also challenges the reader to reflect upon much of the progressive ideas in education to ensure there is research and evidence to support these ideas.
He shares some ideas (some that would require a national shift) about pedagogy and curriculum that would help ensure more knowledge and resulting equity for our students.
With so many books out there that share “shiny� new ideas that are not supported by research, this makes this book that much more important to balance what we do and where we are going in Education.
This is a MUST read.
Hirsch makes it very clear that skills like reading comprehension and critical thinking cannot take place without core knowledge. He also challenges the reader to reflect upon much of the progressive ideas in education to ensure there is research and evidence to support these ideas.
He shares some ideas (some that would require a national shift) about pedagogy and curriculum that would help ensure more knowledge and resulting equity for our students.
With so many books out there that share “shiny� new ideas that are not supported by research, this makes this book that much more important to balance what we do and where we are going in Education.
This is a MUST read.
December 14, 2020
Reading comprehension = vocabulary + world knowledge. That's the whole of it. So we have to teach those things, systematically.
Skills are domain-specific: you cannot transfer them from one type of task or subject matter to another. Teaching general reading strategies like 'main-idea finding' or 'inferencing' is ineffective after the first handful of lessons. Teaching communicative or criticial thinking skills and other so-called twenty-first century skills is not possible separate from extensive knowledge-building on each topic.
Nineteenth-century German Romantic philosophers influenced educators in the US, who set up 'progressive' schools that worked from the idea that the natural development of the child should be paramount in education. Admittedly this led to more humane practices in schools, but it was followed by a rejection of knowledge as central to teaching. With no coherent, knowledge-based curriculum but a school where each child was to develop at his or her own pace, the only solution for offering content was to teach skills instead. This led to a diluted curriculum from the 1930s on that eventually led to a sharp decline in the level of graduates. The equitability of the US school system also dropped - it got less good at reducing inequality. This is because advantaged children are exposed to a lot of vocabulary and world knowledge at home, getting good at reading, and disadvantaged students are not, getting farther behind.
Even more sadly, in the second half of the twentieth century, various countries adopted the US model, with ruinous results for the quality and equity of their education. In France, this can be studied in detail, and Hirsch analyses the results of large-scale multi-decade studies involving hundreds of thousands of children.
We know today from cognitive science why this is so: that domain-specificity of skills that I mentioned above. You cannot understand a text about tree frogs if you have no knowledge of the relevant specialist vocabulary or the background knowledge to build an idea of what could be being said. Domain knowledge trumps IQ, reading level and even text complexity as predictor of comprehension.
Yet progressive ideas about education are so entrenched in the US that teachers and teacher educators resist calls for a curriculum that specifies the knowledge to be taught and then teaches it in a coherent, cumulative way year by year. The Core Knowledge Sequence developed by Hirsch and others is one such curriculum that schools could use. This imparts the specific knowledge required for participation in the public sphere, the things without which you won't fit in. Challenging the established canon is fine, but should not be done at the expense of disadvantaged children's access to knowledge that will enable them greater chances in life.
The idea of children memorising lots of factual knowledge can still seem abhorrent to many teachers and parents. However, if actually done well this is the more child-friendly approach. Children like to learn. They dislike struggling with texts too difficult for them because they are not actually being taught. We need to look at the evidence rather than worshipping the ghosts of ill-supported nineteenth-century ideas.
Skills are domain-specific: you cannot transfer them from one type of task or subject matter to another. Teaching general reading strategies like 'main-idea finding' or 'inferencing' is ineffective after the first handful of lessons. Teaching communicative or criticial thinking skills and other so-called twenty-first century skills is not possible separate from extensive knowledge-building on each topic.
Nineteenth-century German Romantic philosophers influenced educators in the US, who set up 'progressive' schools that worked from the idea that the natural development of the child should be paramount in education. Admittedly this led to more humane practices in schools, but it was followed by a rejection of knowledge as central to teaching. With no coherent, knowledge-based curriculum but a school where each child was to develop at his or her own pace, the only solution for offering content was to teach skills instead. This led to a diluted curriculum from the 1930s on that eventually led to a sharp decline in the level of graduates. The equitability of the US school system also dropped - it got less good at reducing inequality. This is because advantaged children are exposed to a lot of vocabulary and world knowledge at home, getting good at reading, and disadvantaged students are not, getting farther behind.
Even more sadly, in the second half of the twentieth century, various countries adopted the US model, with ruinous results for the quality and equity of their education. In France, this can be studied in detail, and Hirsch analyses the results of large-scale multi-decade studies involving hundreds of thousands of children.
We know today from cognitive science why this is so: that domain-specificity of skills that I mentioned above. You cannot understand a text about tree frogs if you have no knowledge of the relevant specialist vocabulary or the background knowledge to build an idea of what could be being said. Domain knowledge trumps IQ, reading level and even text complexity as predictor of comprehension.
Yet progressive ideas about education are so entrenched in the US that teachers and teacher educators resist calls for a curriculum that specifies the knowledge to be taught and then teaches it in a coherent, cumulative way year by year. The Core Knowledge Sequence developed by Hirsch and others is one such curriculum that schools could use. This imparts the specific knowledge required for participation in the public sphere, the things without which you won't fit in. Challenging the established canon is fine, but should not be done at the expense of disadvantaged children's access to knowledge that will enable them greater chances in life.
The idea of children memorising lots of factual knowledge can still seem abhorrent to many teachers and parents. However, if actually done well this is the more child-friendly approach. Children like to learn. They dislike struggling with texts too difficult for them because they are not actually being taught. We need to look at the evidence rather than worshipping the ghosts of ill-supported nineteenth-century ideas.
September 20, 2017
Sehr viele gute Argumente dafür, dass Kompetenzen eben nicht alles sind und immer auf bestehendem Wissen aufbauen müssen. Allerdings sehr auf das us-amerikanische System ausgerichtet.
May 9, 2020
A little hard to get through for me, but the message was important. A shared common knowledge is essential for communities to thrive and for increased comprehension throughout a lifetime of learning. Hirsch cites evidence that the turning of American curriculum to "skills" at the expense of acquiring knowledge has led to decrease in test scores. He argues that there is no "comprehension skill," but rather the ability to comprehend new material is vastly improved when there is a solid foundation of knowledge and uses his position to poke holes in the idea that because there is such a vast amount of knowledge now, it is better to teach how to acquire that information that to commit facts to memory. The author cites the Japanese curriculum and numerous other case studies that support his theory. I think that his position is controversial because society balks at the idea of ultimate truth and morality. I do see the danger of having a national curriculum if it is used to indoctrinate students in immoral and dishonest ideas, such as communism and socialism.
I liked this quote "The American concern to avoid "indoctrination" simply places implicit values out of sight and raises suspicions about the schools, because the values are not openly stated in the curriculum. The separation of honesty, diligence, kindness, loyalty, and other civic virtues from the state. It does not mean abandoning the teaching of civics. To teach no values at all is to evade an elemental duty, and lead to rootlessness and incivility."
I liked this quote "The American concern to avoid "indoctrination" simply places implicit values out of sight and raises suspicions about the schools, because the values are not openly stated in the curriculum. The separation of honesty, diligence, kindness, loyalty, and other civic virtues from the state. It does not mean abandoning the teaching of civics. To teach no values at all is to evade an elemental duty, and lead to rootlessness and incivility."
December 4, 2017
This book continue's Hirsch's idea that instead of teaching reading skills, such as how to find the main idea, we should be teaching and testing content. I agree that students need more history and science content, but I believe we can teach vocabulary and reading skills that will help students with unfamiliar material, even if it is easier for students to read material about which they know something. Still, the material on the change in French elementary school is fairly convincing.
July 28, 2024
I like some things in here but this book is really, really repetitive bordering on unlistenable.
However, the main idea (haha!) that elementary age students need to be taught more history, literature, and civics in contrast to a test-oriented focus on “skills� is a great one. Learning actual stuff is so fun! Vocabulary is so important. I’m totally with him on this idea.
However, for your sanity don’t read this particular book, woof. “The Knowledge Gap� is also imperfect but it’s significantly better.
However, the main idea (haha!) that elementary age students need to be taught more history, literature, and civics in contrast to a test-oriented focus on “skills� is a great one. Learning actual stuff is so fun! Vocabulary is so important. I’m totally with him on this idea.
However, for your sanity don’t read this particular book, woof. “The Knowledge Gap� is also imperfect but it’s significantly better.
July 25, 2019
For me, being a language teacher in a Swedish school, this book was extremely interesting! I recognize a lot of the problems raised by Hirsch and I would urgently like to see a way to improve reading comprehension amongst schoolchildren too. There was some very insightful material on the importance of an extensive vocabulary as well! This is well worth a read for anyone working with education.
November 14, 2023
Would have been a great article but too long a book
Read
March 15, 2021Why Knowledge Matters van E.D. Hirsch Jr. is met gemak het meest bijzondere boek over onderwijs dat ik de laatste jaren in handen heb gekregen. Het maakt korte metten met moderne onderwijsgoeroes en vraagt aandacht voor de waarde van kennis.
Het onderwijsveld is gevoelig voor boodschappen van goeroes: Michael Fullan (vaak in Nederland uitgenodigd), Sugata Mitra (hole in the wall), Sir Ken Robinson (creativiteits-goeroe) en Andreas Schleicher (PISA). Het zijn hedendaagse volgers van John Dewey, romantici die geloof hechten aan Rousseau in plaats van aan hedendaagse psychologische inzichten. En ze zijn invloedrijk in de westerse onderwijswereld. Maar Hirsch is niet onder de indruk en maakt in Why Knowledge Matters korte metten met hun onderwijsopvattingen over individualiseren en hun nadruk op generieke vaardigheden.
Dewey
De afgelopen vijftig jaar zijn psychologen en hun empirisch-wetenschappelijke methoden steeds meer geweerd uit de onderwijswereld. Dat was begin vorige eeuw wel anders: Edward Thorndike, een tijdgenoot van Dewey, was een psychologisch onderzoeker met enorme impact op het Amerikaanse onderwijs. Mede dankzij hem en hedendaagse klokkenluiders als Herbert A. Simon, Lynne Reder & John R. Anderson; Paul A. Kirschner, Richard E. Clark & John Sweller; en Daniel Willingham weten we nu dat probleem oplossen, creativiteit en kritisch denken geen generieke vaardigheden zijn, maar domeinspecifieke vaardigheden die alleen via kennisverwerving bereikbaar zijn. Een levensdoel van Hirsch is om dat inzicht over te brengen aan een breder publiek. Hij is op hoge leeftijd die uitdaging nog een keer aangegaan nadat hij had begrepen wat het onderwijs in Frankrijk is overkomen. Jazeker, Frankrijk.
In 1989, maakte de wet-Jospin een einde aan het strak centraal geregisseerde Franse onderwijs. Het werd ingeruild voor gefragmenteerd onderwijs in Amerikaanse stijl: individualiserend en gericht op generieke vaardigheden, geheel volgens ideeën die John Dewey in 1910 vastlegde in How We Think. Omdat de inhoud van het onderwijs van voor de wet-Jospin exact bekend is, zijn verschillen in resultaten voor en na 1989 beter aan curriculumverschillen toe te schrijven dan ooit elders het geval was. En ja hoor: het is de Fransen nu wel duidelijk dat dit geïndividualiseerde onderwijs een onderwijsramp heeft opgeleverd: de onderwijsresultaten zijn ernstig teruggevallen. Ook zijn de voorbeeldige gelijke kansen die het Franse onderwijs bood na 1989 verkeerd in hun tegendeel. Alle leerlingen hebben te lijden; sommige leerlingen meer dan andere.
Generieke vaardigheden
Dewey pleitte voor het volgen van de natuurlijke neigingen van het kind � individualiseren dus � maar begreep goed dat het zou leiden tot onderwijs waarin het kennisaanbod chaotisch en gefragmenteerd zou raken, en dat zoiets alleen acceptabel zou zijn wanneer het onderwijs sterke generieke vaardigheden zou opleveren. Dewey vooronderstelt dan ook nadrukkelijk dat het verwerven van kennis minder belangrijk is dan het verwerven van die generieke vaardigheden.
Echter, Hirsch toont aan vanuit de psychologie dat dergelijke generieke vaardigheden niet bestaan. Hij beroept zich onder andere op de Nederlandse grootheid A.D. de Groot:
"The study that started the whole field thinking about the domain specificity of thinking skills was Dutch chess master and psychologist Adriaan de Groot’s chess experiment in the 1940s. […] De Groot concluded that these experts did not possess a skill but rather what he called erudition—deep domain knowledge. By now, an overwhelming body of evidence has generalized the de Groot finding that thinking skills depend on domain knowledge, and are not readily transferred from one domain to another."
Generieke vaardigheden bestaan niet, zegt De Groot, en kunnen dus ook niet worden onderwezen, geoefend en getoetst, ook al gaat ongeveer het hele westerse onderwijsveld er nog steeds van uit dat zoiets wel kan.
Hirsch verwijst op veel plaatsen in zijn boek ook naar modern onderzoek dat hierop wijst (onder meer publicaties van Daniel Willingham en het noodzakelijke Peak � Secrets from the New Science of Expertise van Anders Ericsson en Robert Pool). Ook de in het taalonderwijs populaire ‘leesstrategieën� zijn in Hirsch’s ogen een vergeefse poging leerlingen generieke vaardigheden bij te brengen.
In Why Knowledge Matters volgt het ene belangrijke thema na het andere, van hoofdstuk naar hoofdstuk, met helder aangegeven dwarsverbanden. Hirsch meent dat het in het wiskundeonderwijs minder beroerd is gesteld dan in het taalonderwijs. Door het hele boek heen richt hij zich hierop. Hij werkt de thematiek voor taalbeheersing indrukwekkend uit, maar hij maakt er veel meer van door verbindingen te leggen met referentieniveaus, toetsen en toetsgekte, en wat de psychologie heeft te zeggen over leesvaardigheid.
Leesvaardigheid is een domeinspecifieke vaardigheid, zou je kunnen zeggen: wat je uit een tekst opmaakt, hangt sterker af van achtergrondkennis (die voorwaardelijk is voor het begrijpen) dan van strategisch kunnen lezen of van intellectuele capaciteiten.
Het vinden van de hoofdgedachte in een gegeven tekst, main idea finding, zo’n generieke vaardigheid die volgens Hirsch niet bestaat. Proberen die vaardigheid te onderwijzen, respectievelijk te oefenen, is volgens hem vooral verspilling van tijd, energie en levensvreugde.
Hirsch maakt er in de eerste hoofdstukken werk van, onder andere door te laten zien dat Amerikaanse standards (referentieniveaus) voor Engels vooral inhoudsloze formuleringen bevatten. Inderdaad: find the main idea in tal van varianten. Toetsontwikkelaars moeten daar dan mee aan de slag, en raad eens wat: die maken dus ook toetsen waar juist niet wordt getoetst op wat inhoudelijk is onderwezen, want dat kunnen ze niet weten, maar op de veronderstelde generieke vaardigheid. In feite wordt er volgens Hirsch dan getest op verschillen in intellectuele capaciteiten, zij het op een bijzonder onverantwoorde manier. Prachtig dat Hirsch het fenomeen glashelder benoemt en neerzet.
Hij legt ook de relatie met kansen(on)gelijkheid. Als het onderwijs leerlingen niet toerust met de kennis en het vocabulaire die nodig zijn om het dagelijks nieuws te kunnen volgen en lezen, dan faalt het. En hier geldt: de leerlingen die het eerst het slachtoffer worden van ondeugdelijk onderwijs zijn juist degenen die het het hardst nodig hebben, omdat zij van huis uit die wereldkennis en zijn vocabulaire nauwelijks meekrijgen.
Hirsch laat in doordringende analyses zien hoe en waarom het verschrikkelijk fout is gegaan met het onderwijs in de Verenigde Staten, Frankrijk en Zweden. ‘Verschrikkelijk fout� omdat hij aantoont dat de kloof tussen kinderen uit meer en minder bevoorrechte kringen in geïndividualiseerd en op generieke vaardigheden gericht onderwijs alleen maar groter wordt. Hirsch is daarmee ook relevant voor de actuele discussie over ongelijke kansen, want hij laat zien dat de grootste klappen vallen door individualiseren en het benadrukken van generieke vaardigheden ten koste van kennisverwerving. Het is niet geruststellend dat de hervormingen die plaatsvonden in de VS, Frankrijk en Zweden op hetzelfde gedachtegoed gebaseerd waren als het Eindadvies van de commissieSchnabel (Onderwijs 2032) in Nederland.
Hoe moet het dan wel? Hirsch ziet als de belangrijkste taak van het onderwijs leerlingen vertrouwd te maken met de gemeenschappelijke kennis die in het maatschappelijk leven aan de orde van de dag is: een rijke woordenschat, waartoe ook kennis van personen, plaatsen en gebeurtenissen behoort. Dat moet een gemeenschappelijke woordenschat zijn. Met andere woorden: knowledge matters. Daar past een curriculum bij dat wel overwogen en sterk gestructureerd is, over de jaren heen. In geïndividualiseerd onderwijs gaat die weloverwogen structuur overboord, met als gevolg een gebrekkige verdere opbouw van de woordenschat. En daar hebben vooral kinderen uit minder bevoorrechte omstandigheden onder te lijden: ongelijke kansen. En dat heeft niets te maken met links of rechts. Immers, de Franse onderwijshervorming kwam van ‘links�, in Zweden bijvoorbeeld was het juist politiek ‘rechts� dat die ommezwaai maakte. Dat is misschien wel goed om te melden, zo vlak voor de verkiezingen.
Het onderwijsveld is gevoelig voor boodschappen van goeroes: Michael Fullan (vaak in Nederland uitgenodigd), Sugata Mitra (hole in the wall), Sir Ken Robinson (creativiteits-goeroe) en Andreas Schleicher (PISA). Het zijn hedendaagse volgers van John Dewey, romantici die geloof hechten aan Rousseau in plaats van aan hedendaagse psychologische inzichten. En ze zijn invloedrijk in de westerse onderwijswereld. Maar Hirsch is niet onder de indruk en maakt in Why Knowledge Matters korte metten met hun onderwijsopvattingen over individualiseren en hun nadruk op generieke vaardigheden.
Dewey
De afgelopen vijftig jaar zijn psychologen en hun empirisch-wetenschappelijke methoden steeds meer geweerd uit de onderwijswereld. Dat was begin vorige eeuw wel anders: Edward Thorndike, een tijdgenoot van Dewey, was een psychologisch onderzoeker met enorme impact op het Amerikaanse onderwijs. Mede dankzij hem en hedendaagse klokkenluiders als Herbert A. Simon, Lynne Reder & John R. Anderson; Paul A. Kirschner, Richard E. Clark & John Sweller; en Daniel Willingham weten we nu dat probleem oplossen, creativiteit en kritisch denken geen generieke vaardigheden zijn, maar domeinspecifieke vaardigheden die alleen via kennisverwerving bereikbaar zijn. Een levensdoel van Hirsch is om dat inzicht over te brengen aan een breder publiek. Hij is op hoge leeftijd die uitdaging nog een keer aangegaan nadat hij had begrepen wat het onderwijs in Frankrijk is overkomen. Jazeker, Frankrijk.
In 1989, maakte de wet-Jospin een einde aan het strak centraal geregisseerde Franse onderwijs. Het werd ingeruild voor gefragmenteerd onderwijs in Amerikaanse stijl: individualiserend en gericht op generieke vaardigheden, geheel volgens ideeën die John Dewey in 1910 vastlegde in How We Think. Omdat de inhoud van het onderwijs van voor de wet-Jospin exact bekend is, zijn verschillen in resultaten voor en na 1989 beter aan curriculumverschillen toe te schrijven dan ooit elders het geval was. En ja hoor: het is de Fransen nu wel duidelijk dat dit geïndividualiseerde onderwijs een onderwijsramp heeft opgeleverd: de onderwijsresultaten zijn ernstig teruggevallen. Ook zijn de voorbeeldige gelijke kansen die het Franse onderwijs bood na 1989 verkeerd in hun tegendeel. Alle leerlingen hebben te lijden; sommige leerlingen meer dan andere.
Generieke vaardigheden
Dewey pleitte voor het volgen van de natuurlijke neigingen van het kind � individualiseren dus � maar begreep goed dat het zou leiden tot onderwijs waarin het kennisaanbod chaotisch en gefragmenteerd zou raken, en dat zoiets alleen acceptabel zou zijn wanneer het onderwijs sterke generieke vaardigheden zou opleveren. Dewey vooronderstelt dan ook nadrukkelijk dat het verwerven van kennis minder belangrijk is dan het verwerven van die generieke vaardigheden.
Echter, Hirsch toont aan vanuit de psychologie dat dergelijke generieke vaardigheden niet bestaan. Hij beroept zich onder andere op de Nederlandse grootheid A.D. de Groot:
"The study that started the whole field thinking about the domain specificity of thinking skills was Dutch chess master and psychologist Adriaan de Groot’s chess experiment in the 1940s. […] De Groot concluded that these experts did not possess a skill but rather what he called erudition—deep domain knowledge. By now, an overwhelming body of evidence has generalized the de Groot finding that thinking skills depend on domain knowledge, and are not readily transferred from one domain to another."
Generieke vaardigheden bestaan niet, zegt De Groot, en kunnen dus ook niet worden onderwezen, geoefend en getoetst, ook al gaat ongeveer het hele westerse onderwijsveld er nog steeds van uit dat zoiets wel kan.
Hirsch verwijst op veel plaatsen in zijn boek ook naar modern onderzoek dat hierop wijst (onder meer publicaties van Daniel Willingham en het noodzakelijke Peak � Secrets from the New Science of Expertise van Anders Ericsson en Robert Pool). Ook de in het taalonderwijs populaire ‘leesstrategieën� zijn in Hirsch’s ogen een vergeefse poging leerlingen generieke vaardigheden bij te brengen.
In Why Knowledge Matters volgt het ene belangrijke thema na het andere, van hoofdstuk naar hoofdstuk, met helder aangegeven dwarsverbanden. Hirsch meent dat het in het wiskundeonderwijs minder beroerd is gesteld dan in het taalonderwijs. Door het hele boek heen richt hij zich hierop. Hij werkt de thematiek voor taalbeheersing indrukwekkend uit, maar hij maakt er veel meer van door verbindingen te leggen met referentieniveaus, toetsen en toetsgekte, en wat de psychologie heeft te zeggen over leesvaardigheid.
Leesvaardigheid is een domeinspecifieke vaardigheid, zou je kunnen zeggen: wat je uit een tekst opmaakt, hangt sterker af van achtergrondkennis (die voorwaardelijk is voor het begrijpen) dan van strategisch kunnen lezen of van intellectuele capaciteiten.
Het vinden van de hoofdgedachte in een gegeven tekst, main idea finding, zo’n generieke vaardigheid die volgens Hirsch niet bestaat. Proberen die vaardigheid te onderwijzen, respectievelijk te oefenen, is volgens hem vooral verspilling van tijd, energie en levensvreugde.
Hirsch maakt er in de eerste hoofdstukken werk van, onder andere door te laten zien dat Amerikaanse standards (referentieniveaus) voor Engels vooral inhoudsloze formuleringen bevatten. Inderdaad: find the main idea in tal van varianten. Toetsontwikkelaars moeten daar dan mee aan de slag, en raad eens wat: die maken dus ook toetsen waar juist niet wordt getoetst op wat inhoudelijk is onderwezen, want dat kunnen ze niet weten, maar op de veronderstelde generieke vaardigheid. In feite wordt er volgens Hirsch dan getest op verschillen in intellectuele capaciteiten, zij het op een bijzonder onverantwoorde manier. Prachtig dat Hirsch het fenomeen glashelder benoemt en neerzet.
Hij legt ook de relatie met kansen(on)gelijkheid. Als het onderwijs leerlingen niet toerust met de kennis en het vocabulaire die nodig zijn om het dagelijks nieuws te kunnen volgen en lezen, dan faalt het. En hier geldt: de leerlingen die het eerst het slachtoffer worden van ondeugdelijk onderwijs zijn juist degenen die het het hardst nodig hebben, omdat zij van huis uit die wereldkennis en zijn vocabulaire nauwelijks meekrijgen.
Hirsch laat in doordringende analyses zien hoe en waarom het verschrikkelijk fout is gegaan met het onderwijs in de Verenigde Staten, Frankrijk en Zweden. ‘Verschrikkelijk fout� omdat hij aantoont dat de kloof tussen kinderen uit meer en minder bevoorrechte kringen in geïndividualiseerd en op generieke vaardigheden gericht onderwijs alleen maar groter wordt. Hirsch is daarmee ook relevant voor de actuele discussie over ongelijke kansen, want hij laat zien dat de grootste klappen vallen door individualiseren en het benadrukken van generieke vaardigheden ten koste van kennisverwerving. Het is niet geruststellend dat de hervormingen die plaatsvonden in de VS, Frankrijk en Zweden op hetzelfde gedachtegoed gebaseerd waren als het Eindadvies van de commissieSchnabel (Onderwijs 2032) in Nederland.
Hoe moet het dan wel? Hirsch ziet als de belangrijkste taak van het onderwijs leerlingen vertrouwd te maken met de gemeenschappelijke kennis die in het maatschappelijk leven aan de orde van de dag is: een rijke woordenschat, waartoe ook kennis van personen, plaatsen en gebeurtenissen behoort. Dat moet een gemeenschappelijke woordenschat zijn. Met andere woorden: knowledge matters. Daar past een curriculum bij dat wel overwogen en sterk gestructureerd is, over de jaren heen. In geïndividualiseerd onderwijs gaat die weloverwogen structuur overboord, met als gevolg een gebrekkige verdere opbouw van de woordenschat. En daar hebben vooral kinderen uit minder bevoorrechte omstandigheden onder te lijden: ongelijke kansen. En dat heeft niets te maken met links of rechts. Immers, de Franse onderwijshervorming kwam van ‘links�, in Zweden bijvoorbeeld was het juist politiek ‘rechts� dat die ommezwaai maakte. Dat is misschien wel goed om te melden, zo vlak voor de verkiezingen.
September 15, 2023
The author's perspective in 'The Knowledge-Centered Approach to Education' underscores the significance of knowledge as the cornerstone of education, implicitly suggesting that knowledge takes precedence over skills. While knowledge is undoubtedly vital, the debate on the importance of skills remains. Skills necessitate action, and in many ways, they are the practical manifestation of knowledge.
A key takeaway from this book is the idea that success equates to personal autonomy, encompassing financial independence and control over one's life. This perspective underscores the far-reaching impact of education on an individual's life.
The book's thesis revolves around the concept of student-centered and skill-centered education being detrimental to both schools and students. This viewpoint prompts reflection on the allocation of resources and funding to education. In the United States, where a significant portion of education is publicly funded, the book highlights the need for increased investment in education. Such investment could yield substantial benefits, not only for educators and students but also for the long-term health of the economy.
The notion that communal education fosters national unity is intriguing. By emphasizing the role of education in shaping a cohesive society, the book hints at the potential social benefits of a robust and inclusive educational system.
The book touches upon the current state of education, offering insights into its shortcomings and historical context. It calls for a shift in focus from skills to expertise within specific content areas, underlining the enduring importance of reading and writing skills.
The significance of early vocabulary development emerges as a critical point. Excessive focus on standardized testing and test preparation is critiqued for its potential detrimental effects on long-term educational development.
The author's assertion that knowledge enables strategic thinking and problem-solving is illustrated through personal classroom experiences. Students armed with extensive knowledge can navigate complex questions with creative and critical thinking, demonstrating the value of a well-rounded education.
The book challenges the artificiality of certain assessments, particularly the concept of determining the main idea of a text. It suggests a reevaluation of teaching methods, perhaps akin to the Cambridge style, focusing on deeper comprehension and critical thinking.
Reading and comprehension strategies are praised for their utility in building basic skills, but the book suggests their limited effectiveness in the long term.
Ultimately, the book emphasizes the importance of extensive reading to build knowledge, advocating for a wide-ranging and determined approach to reading.
The book acknowledges the challenge of getting students deeply engaged in topics. The struggle to encourage students to delve into subjects is a recognized hurdle in education.
Technology is deemed a valuable supplement rather than a replacement for teachers. While technological advances can enhance activities and tracking, they cannot substitute the essential role of educators.
The book underscores that teachers cannot be solely judged by test results, as these are influenced by students' existing knowledge, the learning environment, and the curriculum.
Success in education is portrayed as the result of steady, incremental progress over twelve years, rather than relying on a single exceptional achievement.
Vocabulary is acknowledged as a crucial factor, but not the sole determinant of success. While a rich vocabulary can be an asset, a simple vocabulary does not preclude success. It suggests that a balance may be more critical.
The concept of preschool education as a fun and adaptable teaching method is intriguing, with potential applications in primary and secondary education. Traditional classroom settings often limit student engagement, and innovative approaches may enhance learning.
A well-structured lesson plan, encompassing a variety of engaging activities, is advocated for effective teaching.
The book highlights the importance of connected vocabulary and exercises, emphasizing the value of building upon prior knowledge.
The idea of introducing complex topics like psychology, finance, or entrepreneurship to young children is intriguing. These valuable life skills are often overlooked in early education.
The book's core message revolves around leveraging existing knowledge to absorb new information effectively. It suggests that connecting new knowledge to existing knowledge is essential for learning.
Critical thinking is described as a skill that can be developed within specific knowledge domains. It emphasizes that critical thinking evolves gradually through knowledge accumulation and its application to new information.
The significance of a supportive home environment is underscored, as it shapes activities and habits that stimulate the brain and support learning.
Spelling tests are criticized for their limited impact, as they often lead to memorization without long-term retention. Vocabulary acquisition through natural means like reading and conversation is promoted.
The book highlights the parallels between reading and listening comprehension, noting that both involve deciphering meaning from a source.
The notion that reading a text without taking notes can lead to better understanding is discussed. It suggests that extensive note-taking may hinder comprehension.
The book suggests that students should be taught to link their current knowledge to previous texts or knowledge, facilitating a deeper understanding of new material.
The value of reading widely across various topics is emphasized. This approach is seen as crucial for developing expertise in specific areas.
The book raises the idea that both good literature and non-fiction texts should tell a story and convey truth. It advocates for a balance between storytelling and factual presentation.
The concept of individual growth within a community is highlighted, emphasizing the role of the community in shaping an individual's identity.
Expertise is portrayed as a product of in-depth knowledge accumulation and connection-building. The book asserts that technological advancements cannot replace the process of acquiring expertise.
The book acknowledges the challenge of student motivation, a universal issue in education. It underscores the importance of curriculum design and a supportive school culture in overcoming motivational obstacles.
In summary, 'The Knowledge-Centered Approach to Education' offers a thought-provoking exploration of education, highlighting the paramount role of knowledge. It prompts reflection on the allocation of resources, the importance of vocabulary development, and the need for innovative teaching methods. The book underlines the enduring value of reading and the gradual building of expertise. It challenges traditional assessments and advocates for a holistic approach to education, recognizing the influence of both the home environment and the broader community. Ultimately, it calls for a reevaluation of education to ensure students are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for success.
A key takeaway from this book is the idea that success equates to personal autonomy, encompassing financial independence and control over one's life. This perspective underscores the far-reaching impact of education on an individual's life.
The book's thesis revolves around the concept of student-centered and skill-centered education being detrimental to both schools and students. This viewpoint prompts reflection on the allocation of resources and funding to education. In the United States, where a significant portion of education is publicly funded, the book highlights the need for increased investment in education. Such investment could yield substantial benefits, not only for educators and students but also for the long-term health of the economy.
The notion that communal education fosters national unity is intriguing. By emphasizing the role of education in shaping a cohesive society, the book hints at the potential social benefits of a robust and inclusive educational system.
The book touches upon the current state of education, offering insights into its shortcomings and historical context. It calls for a shift in focus from skills to expertise within specific content areas, underlining the enduring importance of reading and writing skills.
The significance of early vocabulary development emerges as a critical point. Excessive focus on standardized testing and test preparation is critiqued for its potential detrimental effects on long-term educational development.
The author's assertion that knowledge enables strategic thinking and problem-solving is illustrated through personal classroom experiences. Students armed with extensive knowledge can navigate complex questions with creative and critical thinking, demonstrating the value of a well-rounded education.
The book challenges the artificiality of certain assessments, particularly the concept of determining the main idea of a text. It suggests a reevaluation of teaching methods, perhaps akin to the Cambridge style, focusing on deeper comprehension and critical thinking.
Reading and comprehension strategies are praised for their utility in building basic skills, but the book suggests their limited effectiveness in the long term.
Ultimately, the book emphasizes the importance of extensive reading to build knowledge, advocating for a wide-ranging and determined approach to reading.
The book acknowledges the challenge of getting students deeply engaged in topics. The struggle to encourage students to delve into subjects is a recognized hurdle in education.
Technology is deemed a valuable supplement rather than a replacement for teachers. While technological advances can enhance activities and tracking, they cannot substitute the essential role of educators.
The book underscores that teachers cannot be solely judged by test results, as these are influenced by students' existing knowledge, the learning environment, and the curriculum.
Success in education is portrayed as the result of steady, incremental progress over twelve years, rather than relying on a single exceptional achievement.
Vocabulary is acknowledged as a crucial factor, but not the sole determinant of success. While a rich vocabulary can be an asset, a simple vocabulary does not preclude success. It suggests that a balance may be more critical.
The concept of preschool education as a fun and adaptable teaching method is intriguing, with potential applications in primary and secondary education. Traditional classroom settings often limit student engagement, and innovative approaches may enhance learning.
A well-structured lesson plan, encompassing a variety of engaging activities, is advocated for effective teaching.
The book highlights the importance of connected vocabulary and exercises, emphasizing the value of building upon prior knowledge.
The idea of introducing complex topics like psychology, finance, or entrepreneurship to young children is intriguing. These valuable life skills are often overlooked in early education.
The book's core message revolves around leveraging existing knowledge to absorb new information effectively. It suggests that connecting new knowledge to existing knowledge is essential for learning.
Critical thinking is described as a skill that can be developed within specific knowledge domains. It emphasizes that critical thinking evolves gradually through knowledge accumulation and its application to new information.
The significance of a supportive home environment is underscored, as it shapes activities and habits that stimulate the brain and support learning.
Spelling tests are criticized for their limited impact, as they often lead to memorization without long-term retention. Vocabulary acquisition through natural means like reading and conversation is promoted.
The book highlights the parallels between reading and listening comprehension, noting that both involve deciphering meaning from a source.
The notion that reading a text without taking notes can lead to better understanding is discussed. It suggests that extensive note-taking may hinder comprehension.
The book suggests that students should be taught to link their current knowledge to previous texts or knowledge, facilitating a deeper understanding of new material.
The value of reading widely across various topics is emphasized. This approach is seen as crucial for developing expertise in specific areas.
The book raises the idea that both good literature and non-fiction texts should tell a story and convey truth. It advocates for a balance between storytelling and factual presentation.
The concept of individual growth within a community is highlighted, emphasizing the role of the community in shaping an individual's identity.
Expertise is portrayed as a product of in-depth knowledge accumulation and connection-building. The book asserts that technological advancements cannot replace the process of acquiring expertise.
The book acknowledges the challenge of student motivation, a universal issue in education. It underscores the importance of curriculum design and a supportive school culture in overcoming motivational obstacles.
In summary, 'The Knowledge-Centered Approach to Education' offers a thought-provoking exploration of education, highlighting the paramount role of knowledge. It prompts reflection on the allocation of resources, the importance of vocabulary development, and the need for innovative teaching methods. The book underlines the enduring value of reading and the gradual building of expertise. It challenges traditional assessments and advocates for a holistic approach to education, recognizing the influence of both the home environment and the broader community. Ultimately, it calls for a reevaluation of education to ensure students are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for success.
March 2, 2018
Hirsch lays out a clear argument as to why educators need to d a much better job of stressing content as well and "critical thinking skills." Hirsch puts much of the blame on the Progressive Educators of the 1920s and 1930s for moving in this direction, but he does, potentially inadvertently, explain how progressive constructs can co-exist with content-rich curriculum programs. Uses the changes in French education in the 1990s as an illustrative example to support his argument.
September 3, 2016
Essential reading if you're concerned about improving education in the US. Describes and justifies changes we must make to our approaches and practices, perhaps better than any of his previous work--and, as I've learned so much from Hirsch's previous work, that's saying something. Required.
December 10, 2017
I appreciate the data Mr. Hirsch shares that shows how current educational philosophies are failing. We are not headed in the right direction. I don’t know if I agree with all of his solutions, but I appreciate his expertise and efforts to speak out.
April 17, 2022
4/5/5 stars.
E.D. Hirsch’s “Why Knowledge Matters� is both fulfilling and alarming to read. Hirsch utterly despises three modern teaching theories and calls them out: skill-centrism, naturalism, and individualism.
First, Hirsch argues against curricula that focus on “skill building� exercises that are detached from a structured curriculum. These drills are almost always a waste of time (and usually boring). Instead, Hirsch proposes that skills cannot be taught interchangeably and the acquisition of knowledge is the necessary key. Without knowledge, there is no critical thinking. Hirsch demonstrates this throughout the book and it makes sense � a student cannot “get� a political cartoon if they do not understand what the symbolism is (or the current event, etc.).
Next, "naturalism" refers to the set of ideas (from the Romantic era in the 1800s) which state that education is a natural and internal process; the teacher should simply be a coach/assistant who provides opportunities for students to grow (unroll a ball of string that is already within them). This is a very harmful and persistent myth. Instead, Hirsch feels that students need a coherent and structured curriculum, especially in the elementary grades. Moreover, he claims that by the high school years it is usually too late to begin a structured curriculum to compete with other students who grew up with a structured education.
Finally, Hirsch rains on the “individualism� parade. This refers to a student following their interests and learning styles because everyone is unique. This sounds like a wonderful idea at first, but it has totally failed where it has been tried. Instead, Hirsch argues what he has been arguing since the 1980s, which is that students need to have a structured curriculum and one that focuses on important issues. He clarifies that he does not want a lock-step scenario where every teacher teaches the same lesson in every classroom at the same time, but argues that the curriculum needs to be structured. For example, teach about the Civil War, but it can vary how it is done.
The academic highlight of the book is when Hirsch analyzes other countries� systems. Most of all, he analyzes France’s elementary curriculum from the 1980s-2007. The French had one of the best systems by the 1980s (high test scores, high public approval, etc.), but in 1989 a far-Left government completely changed their curricula to make it about skill-building, naturalism, and individualism (the three rants of the book). It all failed miserably. Similarly, this stuff has failed in the US. It failed from the 1960s-80s (leading to 1983's "Nation At Risk"), it failed over the recent “No Child Left Behind Era� and onward to today. He also looks at Sweden (similar story to France), Germany (wisely discarded this stuff and now they have greatly improved), and Japan.
One vital piece that I wish Hirsch would have brought up is time commitment. I am not for an over-focus on school, even if the standards/curriculum is good. At one point is rigor too much? At what point will it negatively impact mental health? I like it when we compare a really rigorous system like South Korea vs. a successful system that is not that way (i.e. Finland). We want students to have personal lives and have time to explore their interests. Hopefully society can have an honest discussion about time commitment.
Finally, some other side notes:
- In reading comprehension, knowledge is the most important thing of all and it is not even close. What I did not know is that knowledge-level turns out to be even more important than text complexity, reading ability, and IQ! He cites three studies that confirm this (Recht-Leslie, Schneider, Arya et. al), page 88-89.
- Implicit word learning (when you learn words while being interested in learning about a larger concept) is far more effective than learning words on their own (page 99).
- Close reading should only be done after expertise is achieved. Over-focus on text can eat up valuable working memory and confuses the logical implications of the words (page 111).
- I came across this before, but it was stunning to hear it again: children, on average, hear 45 million words in a professional family, 26 million in a working-class family, and 13 million in the average family on welfare. This �30-million-word gap� impacts reading comprehension and communication enormously before Kindergarten starts (page 167).
In closing, Hirsch might not have all the answers, as no one does, but the case he makes about the importance of knowledge and structure is highly significant. We cannot depend on “looking things up� as a society and allow students to learn what they want, when they want. We need to understand that knowledge builds vocabulary and this leads to critical thinking, not the other way around. Educators have a responsibility to make this happen. As a teacher, I don’t want to teach in a hell-scenario where every minute of class is dictated by the government and we go to school for 15 hours a day, but we ought to have structure in schools and our society ought to take school seriously.
E.D. Hirsch’s “Why Knowledge Matters� is both fulfilling and alarming to read. Hirsch utterly despises three modern teaching theories and calls them out: skill-centrism, naturalism, and individualism.
First, Hirsch argues against curricula that focus on “skill building� exercises that are detached from a structured curriculum. These drills are almost always a waste of time (and usually boring). Instead, Hirsch proposes that skills cannot be taught interchangeably and the acquisition of knowledge is the necessary key. Without knowledge, there is no critical thinking. Hirsch demonstrates this throughout the book and it makes sense � a student cannot “get� a political cartoon if they do not understand what the symbolism is (or the current event, etc.).
Next, "naturalism" refers to the set of ideas (from the Romantic era in the 1800s) which state that education is a natural and internal process; the teacher should simply be a coach/assistant who provides opportunities for students to grow (unroll a ball of string that is already within them). This is a very harmful and persistent myth. Instead, Hirsch feels that students need a coherent and structured curriculum, especially in the elementary grades. Moreover, he claims that by the high school years it is usually too late to begin a structured curriculum to compete with other students who grew up with a structured education.
Finally, Hirsch rains on the “individualism� parade. This refers to a student following their interests and learning styles because everyone is unique. This sounds like a wonderful idea at first, but it has totally failed where it has been tried. Instead, Hirsch argues what he has been arguing since the 1980s, which is that students need to have a structured curriculum and one that focuses on important issues. He clarifies that he does not want a lock-step scenario where every teacher teaches the same lesson in every classroom at the same time, but argues that the curriculum needs to be structured. For example, teach about the Civil War, but it can vary how it is done.
The academic highlight of the book is when Hirsch analyzes other countries� systems. Most of all, he analyzes France’s elementary curriculum from the 1980s-2007. The French had one of the best systems by the 1980s (high test scores, high public approval, etc.), but in 1989 a far-Left government completely changed their curricula to make it about skill-building, naturalism, and individualism (the three rants of the book). It all failed miserably. Similarly, this stuff has failed in the US. It failed from the 1960s-80s (leading to 1983's "Nation At Risk"), it failed over the recent “No Child Left Behind Era� and onward to today. He also looks at Sweden (similar story to France), Germany (wisely discarded this stuff and now they have greatly improved), and Japan.
One vital piece that I wish Hirsch would have brought up is time commitment. I am not for an over-focus on school, even if the standards/curriculum is good. At one point is rigor too much? At what point will it negatively impact mental health? I like it when we compare a really rigorous system like South Korea vs. a successful system that is not that way (i.e. Finland). We want students to have personal lives and have time to explore their interests. Hopefully society can have an honest discussion about time commitment.
Finally, some other side notes:
- In reading comprehension, knowledge is the most important thing of all and it is not even close. What I did not know is that knowledge-level turns out to be even more important than text complexity, reading ability, and IQ! He cites three studies that confirm this (Recht-Leslie, Schneider, Arya et. al), page 88-89.
- Implicit word learning (when you learn words while being interested in learning about a larger concept) is far more effective than learning words on their own (page 99).
- Close reading should only be done after expertise is achieved. Over-focus on text can eat up valuable working memory and confuses the logical implications of the words (page 111).
- I came across this before, but it was stunning to hear it again: children, on average, hear 45 million words in a professional family, 26 million in a working-class family, and 13 million in the average family on welfare. This �30-million-word gap� impacts reading comprehension and communication enormously before Kindergarten starts (page 167).
In closing, Hirsch might not have all the answers, as no one does, but the case he makes about the importance of knowledge and structure is highly significant. We cannot depend on “looking things up� as a society and allow students to learn what they want, when they want. We need to understand that knowledge builds vocabulary and this leads to critical thinking, not the other way around. Educators have a responsibility to make this happen. As a teacher, I don’t want to teach in a hell-scenario where every minute of class is dictated by the government and we go to school for 15 hours a day, but we ought to have structure in schools and our society ought to take school seriously.
July 25, 2021
Right before listening to Hirsch's Why Knowledge Matters, I listened to an audiobook by Dintersmith's book called What School Could Be; Dintersmith seemed to be channeling Dewey, pointing to glowing examples of those who made school more child-centered, providing a context for children to tinker, explore, create and do what interests them. He presented evidence that a way to reduce inequities would be to make education relevant and interesting to black children and do away with standardized testing. So it was interesting listening to Hirsch, who is on the other end of the spectrum; he claims elements from Progressivism such as the focus on individualism, the rejection of “rote memorization� (i.e. the learning of content), the learning of non-domain skills (like reading comprehension, problem-solving and critical thinking) and naturalism (students learning skills when most “natural�), has had a massively negative effect on minorities.
It is assumed by Progressives that some that content and knowledge isn’t as important now, because it is just a click away on google. There is no need to force children to learn all this information when instead they can practice problem-solving and critical thinking. The issue is, for example, if teaching art history, though all the content is on google, if the information fails to find its way into the minds of the students in a coherent and lasting manner, they cannot know what to search for, they cannot make connections, they cannot problem solve or think critically, they cannot appreciate and recognize a lot of art, they cannot creatively transgress. Some Progressives hoped children could be able to skip ahead to level two (skill engagement), without completing level one (knowledge acquisition). And again, this has most negatively affected the poor. There is evidence that well-intentioned Progressive reforms have made things worse.
Since, knowledge matters and since schools are now depriving the poor of knowledge, and the poor tend to have less “knowledge capital� from home, they don’t have the foundational vocabulary and cultural understanding needed to succeed academically or professionally. Hirsch (2016) details how France, with a diverse population, went from having one of the best education systems in the world, with little inequity between the haves and have nots, only to embrace America’s progressive model (hoping to make things even better). Tragically, France has documented a steady and drastic academic decline and witnessed an ever-widening of the achievement gap. Many Asian countries resisted the Progressive orthodoxy of the 20th century and are high-performing. Hirsch points out a handful of American schools that rejected the progressive model and adopted a content-based curriculum (aligned with the best findings of cognitive science) in poor and disadvantaged neighborhoods, which have witnessed remarkable success.
In learning, Hirsch argues that there is the Matthew effect (to those who have, more is given). Previous knowledge that is mastered in preschool and elementary school can be likened to Velcro which allows new knowledge to "stick" to be incorporated into a pre-existing web and understood and built upon. Subject vocabulary is learned naturally, as students learn essential content. The grades logically build on, connect, and expands their knowledge base. Things like critical thinking, problem-solving, reading comprehension are connected organically with interesting content.
Hirsch argues that schools employing a knowledge-based curriculum is a matter of equity; the disadvantage, receive less of this at home, and now since Progressivism took over, they receive little of it at schools, which means cultural capital ends up widening the achievement gap between the haves and the have nots. However, if the curriculum was changed and teachers got on board, they could limit this inequity, helping the poor to receive the kind of knowledge base that the intellectual elite receive.
It is assumed by Progressives that some that content and knowledge isn’t as important now, because it is just a click away on google. There is no need to force children to learn all this information when instead they can practice problem-solving and critical thinking. The issue is, for example, if teaching art history, though all the content is on google, if the information fails to find its way into the minds of the students in a coherent and lasting manner, they cannot know what to search for, they cannot make connections, they cannot problem solve or think critically, they cannot appreciate and recognize a lot of art, they cannot creatively transgress. Some Progressives hoped children could be able to skip ahead to level two (skill engagement), without completing level one (knowledge acquisition). And again, this has most negatively affected the poor. There is evidence that well-intentioned Progressive reforms have made things worse.
Since, knowledge matters and since schools are now depriving the poor of knowledge, and the poor tend to have less “knowledge capital� from home, they don’t have the foundational vocabulary and cultural understanding needed to succeed academically or professionally. Hirsch (2016) details how France, with a diverse population, went from having one of the best education systems in the world, with little inequity between the haves and have nots, only to embrace America’s progressive model (hoping to make things even better). Tragically, France has documented a steady and drastic academic decline and witnessed an ever-widening of the achievement gap. Many Asian countries resisted the Progressive orthodoxy of the 20th century and are high-performing. Hirsch points out a handful of American schools that rejected the progressive model and adopted a content-based curriculum (aligned with the best findings of cognitive science) in poor and disadvantaged neighborhoods, which have witnessed remarkable success.
In learning, Hirsch argues that there is the Matthew effect (to those who have, more is given). Previous knowledge that is mastered in preschool and elementary school can be likened to Velcro which allows new knowledge to "stick" to be incorporated into a pre-existing web and understood and built upon. Subject vocabulary is learned naturally, as students learn essential content. The grades logically build on, connect, and expands their knowledge base. Things like critical thinking, problem-solving, reading comprehension are connected organically with interesting content.
Hirsch argues that schools employing a knowledge-based curriculum is a matter of equity; the disadvantage, receive less of this at home, and now since Progressivism took over, they receive little of it at schools, which means cultural capital ends up widening the achievement gap between the haves and the have nots. However, if the curriculum was changed and teachers got on board, they could limit this inequity, helping the poor to receive the kind of knowledge base that the intellectual elite receive.
December 5, 2020
I am not really sure exactly what the deal is with this guy except he's apparently like 90 and says that individualism is about pantheism or something. Also that imagination is bad because the bible only uses the word negatively?? What does that even mean!
Anyway other than the various weird things I was convinced by the studies he cited about France and declining test scores and whatnot. I was previously somewhat into (or was prepared to be convinced by) Constructivist Teaching which he is against, but I think he successfully showed that it doesn't improve test scores and it increases inequality! Which you'd think people would NOTICE...Since everyone claims to care so much. But I guess increasing direct instruction and having a standard curriculum focusing on content knowledge is not a sexy solution that can be distilled into a hashtag and it ~seems conservative~ so no one's ever going to be into it
But also I don't really necessarily see a problem with teaching "critical thinking" although I admit I always thought of the term in the philosophical/logical sense which I'm thinking now that's not how it's usually meant in educational contexts. Weird! I would have liked more persuasion on why critical thinking and "finding the main idea" aren't actual skills that you can learn but he kind of just takes those statements for granted and doesn't try to convince you why. Too bad too cause I was up for being convinced...
But I guess the MAIN IDEA ;) ;) ;) of the book is that you need a basic foundation of content knowledge to be able to pass those reading tests...Which I don't totally 100% agree with since I personally had a very pleasant time taking the SAT in high school even though I was definitely on the "not going to college" track and I still did pretty good at finding the main idea of those passages about random topics. Anyway it made me think about how some people are against the SAT because it "discriminated" against people who don't have the background knowledge but that kind of proves the point doesn't it. But I DO think more content knowledge is a good thing and there really is too much emphasis on "21st century skills" (vom) and "how you can just look up FACTS on Google anyway!" (Double vom!!!)
He also doesn't explain what schools are doing to "individualize" but now I am under the impression that schools just don't teach content at all which is troubling but who knows. I guess it explains why I always felt like we never really learned anything in high school except for random tidbits to memorize for the test. And that's why I was always against "traditional schools" but maybe it's possible that I hated the tidbits because they were just tidbits to serve as a vehicle for the true curriculum of "critical thinking and main idea finding" as he says?
So I rated it a 3 because his writing is kind of repetitive and he doesn't really explain things but the content itself was interesting...
OH the main problem with the book is that he says that having a standard curriculum is MORE AMERICAN or whatever, or implies it anyway, which is REALLY not going to convince the type of people who want to #disrupttheclassroom and be into Constructivism and personalized project based content etc... Also his only reasoning for being against all that is the test scores aspect but to these types of people who are into this personalized individualized stuff, test scores are "part of the problem" so he's not really going to convince them but I guess that's not really his goal?
WHO KNOWS! he's 90!
Anyway other than the various weird things I was convinced by the studies he cited about France and declining test scores and whatnot. I was previously somewhat into (or was prepared to be convinced by) Constructivist Teaching which he is against, but I think he successfully showed that it doesn't improve test scores and it increases inequality! Which you'd think people would NOTICE...Since everyone claims to care so much. But I guess increasing direct instruction and having a standard curriculum focusing on content knowledge is not a sexy solution that can be distilled into a hashtag and it ~seems conservative~ so no one's ever going to be into it
But also I don't really necessarily see a problem with teaching "critical thinking" although I admit I always thought of the term in the philosophical/logical sense which I'm thinking now that's not how it's usually meant in educational contexts. Weird! I would have liked more persuasion on why critical thinking and "finding the main idea" aren't actual skills that you can learn but he kind of just takes those statements for granted and doesn't try to convince you why. Too bad too cause I was up for being convinced...
But I guess the MAIN IDEA ;) ;) ;) of the book is that you need a basic foundation of content knowledge to be able to pass those reading tests...Which I don't totally 100% agree with since I personally had a very pleasant time taking the SAT in high school even though I was definitely on the "not going to college" track and I still did pretty good at finding the main idea of those passages about random topics. Anyway it made me think about how some people are against the SAT because it "discriminated" against people who don't have the background knowledge but that kind of proves the point doesn't it. But I DO think more content knowledge is a good thing and there really is too much emphasis on "21st century skills" (vom) and "how you can just look up FACTS on Google anyway!" (Double vom!!!)
He also doesn't explain what schools are doing to "individualize" but now I am under the impression that schools just don't teach content at all which is troubling but who knows. I guess it explains why I always felt like we never really learned anything in high school except for random tidbits to memorize for the test. And that's why I was always against "traditional schools" but maybe it's possible that I hated the tidbits because they were just tidbits to serve as a vehicle for the true curriculum of "critical thinking and main idea finding" as he says?
So I rated it a 3 because his writing is kind of repetitive and he doesn't really explain things but the content itself was interesting...
OH the main problem with the book is that he says that having a standard curriculum is MORE AMERICAN or whatever, or implies it anyway, which is REALLY not going to convince the type of people who want to #disrupttheclassroom and be into Constructivism and personalized project based content etc... Also his only reasoning for being against all that is the test scores aspect but to these types of people who are into this personalized individualized stuff, test scores are "part of the problem" so he's not really going to convince them but I guess that's not really his goal?
WHO KNOWS! he's 90!
January 2, 2020
In 13+ years of experience in literacy, I’ve worked alongside countless teachers who spend hours preparing lessons that incorporate best practices, yet many of us fail to see the results of our dedication. It's demoralizing. Over the years, I have been consistently in search of a new-and-improved strategy to teach comprehension, but I have never questioned the foundation upon which our reading instruction is based - the standards - until now.
Why Knowledge Matters brilliantly explains why our nation is struggling with reading scores. While there is no way to capture the strength of Hirsch’s claim in a summary, here are some key points. Hirsch points out that since reading standards are devoid of content, they claim to assess thinking skills. However, when students read a text, they comprehend (i.e. think) through two main avenues (besides decoding): accessing content knowledge and vocabulary knowledge. As Hirsch points out, nations that prepare their students effectively for reading assessments are those with knowledge-building curricula that specify the core knowledge students should master at each grade level. Through cross-disciplinary units, these curricula teach students the knowledge and vocabulary they need to master grade-level content, and they build upon this knowledge in subsequent grade levels. When students read, they have the knowledge and vocabulary to comprehend, and thus to answer reading questions correctly.
Throughout the book, Hirsch points out how our educational system has suffered in other ways due to the lack of a knowledge-building curriculum. This includes blaming teachers for their lack of effectiveness, decrying the long-term effectiveness of Pre-K and Head Start, and widening the achievement gap between advantaged and poor children. He makes a compelling argument for the implementation of a core knowledge building curriculum beginning in Pre-K, and I am super-proud to be working in a district that is taking this approach across multiple grade levels. This is a must-read for anyone interested in improving literacy! #knowledgematters #curriculummatters
Why Knowledge Matters brilliantly explains why our nation is struggling with reading scores. While there is no way to capture the strength of Hirsch’s claim in a summary, here are some key points. Hirsch points out that since reading standards are devoid of content, they claim to assess thinking skills. However, when students read a text, they comprehend (i.e. think) through two main avenues (besides decoding): accessing content knowledge and vocabulary knowledge. As Hirsch points out, nations that prepare their students effectively for reading assessments are those with knowledge-building curricula that specify the core knowledge students should master at each grade level. Through cross-disciplinary units, these curricula teach students the knowledge and vocabulary they need to master grade-level content, and they build upon this knowledge in subsequent grade levels. When students read, they have the knowledge and vocabulary to comprehend, and thus to answer reading questions correctly.
Throughout the book, Hirsch points out how our educational system has suffered in other ways due to the lack of a knowledge-building curriculum. This includes blaming teachers for their lack of effectiveness, decrying the long-term effectiveness of Pre-K and Head Start, and widening the achievement gap between advantaged and poor children. He makes a compelling argument for the implementation of a core knowledge building curriculum beginning in Pre-K, and I am super-proud to be working in a district that is taking this approach across multiple grade levels. This is a must-read for anyone interested in improving literacy! #knowledgematters #curriculummatters
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 1, 2020
Hirsch makes very good points regarding the failure of the "skills-based" approach and the imperative need for a common curriculum. If I were to rate the book based on this analysis alone it would get five stars.
However, the author either does not understand, or more likely is willfully ignorant of, the valid criticism that a homogeneous curriculum as he describes runs the very real danger of cultural imperialism. At multiple points in the book he dismisses the criticism out of hand, arguing that because a common curriculum is effective at closing the achievement gap, it cannot be harmful. By 'uplifting' the disadvantaged, he does not consider that enforced conformity to a WASPish status quo silences minority experiences. An easy solution which Hirsch barely considers would be to build a much more inclusive common curriculum, rather than disparaging 'multiculturalism' at every condescending opportunity.
The most egregious excerpt:
"There have been in history benign empires (the Roman Empire at times) that did not force people to give up their local languages, modes, and customs, and the United States has been one of them."
Imagine being a Harvard professor and believing this.
However, the author either does not understand, or more likely is willfully ignorant of, the valid criticism that a homogeneous curriculum as he describes runs the very real danger of cultural imperialism. At multiple points in the book he dismisses the criticism out of hand, arguing that because a common curriculum is effective at closing the achievement gap, it cannot be harmful. By 'uplifting' the disadvantaged, he does not consider that enforced conformity to a WASPish status quo silences minority experiences. An easy solution which Hirsch barely considers would be to build a much more inclusive common curriculum, rather than disparaging 'multiculturalism' at every condescending opportunity.
The most egregious excerpt:
"There have been in history benign empires (the Roman Empire at times) that did not force people to give up their local languages, modes, and customs, and the United States has been one of them."
Imagine being a Harvard professor and believing this.
October 9, 2023
The educational system in America is broken and it’s gone from bad to worse with every child-centric, individualized, “no child left behind� decision made from top legislature down to the local school. This book is a research-based, evidence-proven plea to return to knowledge-based schooling in order to rescue our kids from the current public “education� fiasco. Everyone needs to read this book, especially if you work in the education sphere, or if you care about your child’s education at all. Change is possible. The proof is in the pudding with a knowledge-based approach, curriculum, & pedagogy. American schools continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over claiming to champion things like “critical thinking, creative problem solving & comprehension,� seeing these skills as separate from the content. Modern American public schools (& many private as well) are pushing for the same old skills focused education, which has crippled our children intellectually. They refuse to change this model while hoping for a different result. An outrageous amount of money, resources, and children’s futures have been sacrificed on the alter of individualized child-centric education. It’s high time for a change. Reading this book is a first step.
April 9, 2023
I was assigned to read this book as part of my educational doctorate (Ed.D.) program. At first, this book really annoyed me - part of it, I think, is the 'holier than thou' tone that the author takes, that he has found THE solution to increasing reading achievement in the US. Once I got past the tone and his obsession with France and Japan, I agree with his ideas in conclusion, but I felt some of his premises were faulty. However, his tone is much softer in the final chapter and does a much better job of showing examples of the results his work can get in schools.
As a current educator, I am much more swayed by testimonials and qualitative research from other teachers that says, 'I tried this thing and here are my results you can see. If you want your students to do this, this is how I did it' than 'No really, my idea is awesome, trust me' - we've all sat through enough PD sessions that never ended up changing anything long term in our classrooms. His research is focused at the elementary level (which I am not) so I don't think I will do further reading on his ideas, but they have some merit for those whose classrooms they would affect.
As a current educator, I am much more swayed by testimonials and qualitative research from other teachers that says, 'I tried this thing and here are my results you can see. If you want your students to do this, this is how I did it' than 'No really, my idea is awesome, trust me' - we've all sat through enough PD sessions that never ended up changing anything long term in our classrooms. His research is focused at the elementary level (which I am not) so I don't think I will do further reading on his ideas, but they have some merit for those whose classrooms they would affect.
September 18, 2023
E.D. Hirsch breaks down the issues in American education and our testing systems, and lays out solutions. I want to go beat this book upon the heads of all federal education boards and test creators.
Elementary schools should teach knowledge in a cumulative way that builds on itself year after year in order for children to gain the reading and vocabulary skills they need, especially to bridge gaps in poverty. Instead, we test based on "skills" in a way that is wrecking the system. If you care about American education, this is a wealth of information and studies—particularly the studies of France and Sweden's education models as their scores dropped dramatically after moving from learning a core base of curriculum (teachers know what to teach, students what to expect) to an incoherent teaching of individualism and vague skill training.
Hirsch has been doing this for so many years and has built out an entire free curriculum for American schools to use to implement his ideas (which is being used today). I appreciate how he doesn't just point out problems, but helps provide solutions.
Elementary schools should teach knowledge in a cumulative way that builds on itself year after year in order for children to gain the reading and vocabulary skills they need, especially to bridge gaps in poverty. Instead, we test based on "skills" in a way that is wrecking the system. If you care about American education, this is a wealth of information and studies—particularly the studies of France and Sweden's education models as their scores dropped dramatically after moving from learning a core base of curriculum (teachers know what to teach, students what to expect) to an incoherent teaching of individualism and vague skill training.
Hirsch has been doing this for so many years and has built out an entire free curriculum for American schools to use to implement his ideas (which is being used today). I appreciate how he doesn't just point out problems, but helps provide solutions.
May 27, 2024
Quite convincing on the negative megatrend in education; more kids have problems reading, writing and with math, and everyone has their own explanation as to why (too many women teachers, too many private schools, not enough dicipline, too much dicipline, too much screen time, not intelligent enough use of the screens, lack of proper food, just to mention a few I have heard). The author is in the «modern ideas of pedagogics are faulty» camp, but he doesn’t reduce it to a lefty-righty quarrel, which is quite nice, also he doesn’t dig for all too long about the roots of the problem (it’s the romantic vs realistic debate, him in the realistic camp), but gives more time and space more to the solutions. It sometimes gets a bit much, though: The point is driven home about 20 times, which is of course very pedagogical (doh), but at some point one wants to move on. Point taken! - then repeat point ten more times. But of course, the reader will never forget.
July 3, 2019
I cannot say that I completely agree with Hirsch (it’s hard to not feel at least a tinge of white elitism) BUT I have to give this book 5 stars because it profoundly altered the way that I think about education and knowledge. I’ve been an elementary school teacher for 6 years, read many books on education, and this far and away felt the most important of all I’ve read because of it’s stray from repetitive dominant thought in education and the courage to truly challenge the status quo, regardless of the fact that it’s at times uncomfortable. I cannot recommend this book more to anyone in education or interested the education of their children or at large. Highly interesting, engaging, well written, and critically important.
December 27, 2022
This is a massive rehash (for me) of the last Hirsch book I read, How to Educate a Citizen. There were some things that were different, but the main point seemed to be the same. Knowledge is more important to teach (especially in the early years) that skills which don't necessarily translate outside of a shared set of knowledge points. It is an interesting idea, one that I will be playing with in my own classroom.
I do believe that, as educators, we can do better for our charges. But I don't think that the magic bullet offered by Hirsch will do it all. I need to read more on this subject. So, of course, I'll read more Hirsch. Any suggestions for other sources to read would be massively appreciated.
I do believe that, as educators, we can do better for our charges. But I don't think that the magic bullet offered by Hirsch will do it all. I need to read more on this subject. So, of course, I'll read more Hirsch. Any suggestions for other sources to read would be massively appreciated.
December 27, 2022
This is a massive rehash (for me) of the last Hirsch book I read, How to Educate a Citizen. There were some things that were different, but the main point seemed to be the same. Knowledge is more important to teach (especially in the early years) that skills which don't necessarily translate outside of a shared set of knowledge points. It is an interesting idea, one that I will be playing with in my own classroom.
I do believe that, as educators, we can do better for our charges. But I don't think that the magic bullet offered by Hirsch will do it all. I need to read more on this subject. So, of course, I'll read more Hirsch. Any suggestions for other sources to read would be massively appreciated.
I do believe that, as educators, we can do better for our charges. But I don't think that the magic bullet offered by Hirsch will do it all. I need to read more on this subject. So, of course, I'll read more Hirsch. Any suggestions for other sources to read would be massively appreciated.
March 12, 2023
We can start breaking free from that intellectual monopoly when the wider public understands that thinking skills - like "critical and creative thinking" and "problem solving"- are not productive educational aims.
Thinking skills are rarely independent of specific expertise. As Anders Ericsson and Robert Poole put it bluntly in their authoritative 2016 book on the subject: "There is no such thing as developing a general skill." The goal of imparting all-purpose skills is a delusion. Once the general-skills idea is exposed as a myth, no persuasive argument is left standing to excuse curricular incoherence.
Thinking skills are rarely independent of specific expertise. As Anders Ericsson and Robert Poole put it bluntly in their authoritative 2016 book on the subject: "There is no such thing as developing a general skill." The goal of imparting all-purpose skills is a delusion. Once the general-skills idea is exposed as a myth, no persuasive argument is left standing to excuse curricular incoherence.
March 19, 2024
As much as I was looking forward to it, I had a really hard time getting into this book. I even set it down after a chapter or two and wondered if I would ever be able to pick it up again. But I did. I went back to it and, after clearing my head with a few books from other genres for a change of pace, I was able to concentrate.
The narrator lacked speed and inflection. But I do also think the first half the book was somewhat drier than the second half. Perhaps it was just me, but I felt like every chapter was a little better than the one before.
If you are having trouble sticking with it, skip over to the last couple of chapters - you really shouldn't miss the last chapter.
The narrator lacked speed and inflection. But I do also think the first half the book was somewhat drier than the second half. Perhaps it was just me, but I felt like every chapter was a little better than the one before.
If you are having trouble sticking with it, skip over to the last couple of chapters - you really shouldn't miss the last chapter.
May 30, 2024
I wish all administrators and school level decision-makers had to read this book. Much of what is in this book is what teachers who have worked outside of education have been saying all along, but the inclusion of data from France and other countries (as well as from within the US itself) paints a vivid picture of what public schools in the US could and should look like - embedding some form of the core knowledge curriculum to build SHARED knowledge and experience, which can help unite us in these polarizing times and help close the knowledge gap between haves and have nots.
October 22, 2021
I hoped this book was for me but it's not.
Actually working as a chemistry researcher, I want to become a teacher in next few years. I found this book thanks to an online blog. I wished to find some practical guides/advices to better transfer knowledge to students.
However, this book present very general ideas about children education, not about children teaching in a classroom. Additionnally, the book language is quite agressive for me. I droped this book at chapter 4
Actually working as a chemistry researcher, I want to become a teacher in next few years. I found this book thanks to an online blog. I wished to find some practical guides/advices to better transfer knowledge to students.
However, this book present very general ideas about children education, not about children teaching in a classroom. Additionnally, the book language is quite agressive for me. I droped this book at chapter 4
February 29, 2024
When Hirsch criticises, he criticises with passion and evidence, producing one of the most scathing attacks on some of our educational woes. That part is crucial.
However, the solutions are not only a bit problematic when he switches into a "salesman mode", there is also a load of axioms, random defensiveness and even obvious emotional bitterness. Still a great read, but the second part is much weaker than the first one.
However, the solutions are not only a bit problematic when he switches into a "salesman mode", there is also a load of axioms, random defensiveness and even obvious emotional bitterness. Still a great read, but the second part is much weaker than the first one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.