Knowledge versus thinking skills: the debate over Hirsch’s Core Knowledge curriculum

Mr Gradgrind – the future and the past

Those familiar with Hard Times will remember Mr Thomas Gradgrind’s obsession with facts: ‘Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.‘ A curriculum of hard facts, based on the roots of ‘cultural literacy’ and its association with Hirsch’s Core Knowledge, has for some time been gaining traction in England’s schools

Gradgrind’s jarringly short sentences and monotonous repetition of the word ‘facts’ illustrate his own mechanical and emotionless character. It is significant that Gradgrind’s call for facts opens a work of fiction. By drawing attention to the fact that we are reading fiction, and by giving the speaker a name that suggests mechanised cogs wearing down, Dickens is ironically suggesting that facts alone cannot begin to bring intellectual pleasure, and that this is indeed a limiting and limited philosophy.

Compare this with the old Education Secretary Mr. Michael Gove, with similarly repetitive exhortations on a ‘Today’ programme: ‘I’m not going to be coming up with any prescriptive lists. I just think there should be facts… I am saying we need to have facts in the curriculum – facts, knowledge. I want teachers to decide what that is.’

Perhaps the Dickensian distancing mechanism was too subtle for the then education secretary. Indeed, his review of the National Curriculum urged schools to emphasise the learning of key facts, arming children with essential knowledge to aid their learning. According to him, this was the future. It was also, quite clearly, the long distant and harshly derided past.

Content is king

The idea of developing a ‘content-rich curriculum’ had its origins in the USA – specifically with a long retired 90 year old English literature professor, ED Hirsch, referred to as the most hopeful alternative to ‘dead–end‘ progressive education. The debate about what American children need to know has been filtering across the Atlantic for a couple of decades, but is now receiving greater attention in the UK. A curriculum of hard facts rather than of skills, based on the roots of ‘cultural literacy’ and its association with Hirsch, has gained significant traction in England’s schools.

Cultural literacy: back to basics

Hirsch essentially has two ‘big ideas’ with the first being that we all need something he calls ‘cultural literacy’ – certain facts, ideas, literary works that he says people need to know in order to operate effectively as citizens of the country in which they live. Children from poor, illiterate homes remain poor and illiterate because they lack the accumulative advantage of cultural capital and core background knowledge. He argues that, ‘Cultural literacy constitutes the only sure avenue of opportunity for disadvantaged children…the only reliable way of combating the social determinism that now condemns them to remain in the same social and educational condition as their parents…It is an unacceptable failure of our schools, one which has occurred not because our teachers are inept but chiefly because they are compelled to teach a fragmented curriculum based on faulty educational theories.’ Hirsch has argued passionately that schools should teach a highly specific, knowledge-based curriculum that allows children to understand things writers and speakers take for granted.

The second idea is that children need to learn these facts in a highly organised, structured way – in a sort of ‘back to basics’ education. He argues that pupils need to follow a slow pattern of accretion with coherent, cumulative factual knowledge as a vital component for reading comprehension, literacy and critical higher-order thinking skills. Schools can best carry out this mission by providing all pupils with an explicit, sequential, rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum. An example is that many believe that a critical academic difference between advantaged and disadvantaged children is a difference in vocabulary size. Imparting broad knowledge to all children, starting in preschool, is, according to Hirsch, the best way to enable all children to acquire a broad vocabulary, and, more generally, achieve equality of educational opportunity. He believes that pupils cannot learn or probe deeply into material that is largely new to them and he points to studies that show the most effective learning environment is one that guides a pupil through manageable, incremental advances in knowledge which offer the pupil a relatively small proportion of new content.

The cultural have-nots

But is there a knowledge that constitutes the shared intellectual currency of the society? What Hirsch espouses is the not-so-radical notion that while some people grow up in homes where all sorts of cultural knowledge is common currency – history, art, literature – others do not. Hirsch set about defining the most important background knowledge he believed was needed so that the cultural ‘have-nots’ could become ‘haves’.

Cultural literacy is based on the idea that reading comprehension requires not just formal decoding skills but also wide-ranging background knowledge. ‘Reading, writing and all communication depend on taken-for-granted background knowledge that is not directly expressed in what is written. Therefore, in order to teach children how to understand what is written, we must teach them that taken-for-granted background knowledge.’ (Hirsch, 2006 p122) For more than three decades, in books, articles and lectures, Hirsch has promoted Core Knowledge and has argued passionately that schools should teach a highly specific, knowledge-based curriculum that allows children to understand things writers and speakers take for granted: knowledge that allows them to participate in democratic life.

Knowledge as a way of achieving ‘cultural literacy’

According to Hirsch supporters, the Core Knowledge curriculum has been successful in schools housed within some of America’s toughest neighbourhoods. They boast higher literacy rates, greater pupil and parent engagement and make a significant contribution to closing educational inequality gaps. Hirsch argues that ‘breadth of knowledge is the single factor within human control that contributes most to academic achievement and general cognitive competence. Breadth of knowledge is a far greater factor in achievement than socioeconomic status. The positive correlation between academic ability and socioeconomic status is only half the correlation between academic ability and the possession of general information. That is to say, being ‘smart’ is more dependent on possessing general knowledge than on family background. Imparting broad knowledge to all children is the single most effective way to narrow the gap between demographic groups through schooling.’ (Hirsch, 2006 p106)

Knowledge and skills are not mutually exclusive

The debate about Hirsch has become a needlessly and politically polarised one. The all-too-frequent antithesis between skills and knowledge is facile and deplorable. To contrast ‘knowledge’ with ‘thinking skills’ is quite false. They are not mutually exclusive alternatives. It is difficult to argue that knowledge gets in the way of reasoning because it is what we reason with. Nowhere have I met a teacher who ‘does not believe in’ facts and knowledge. Knowledge has two aspects – knowing content/information, and also knowing how to do something; summed up as knowing what and knowing how. Knowledge and skills go together. More emphasis on knowledge and facts cannot necessarily be a bad idea, simply because knowledge builds on knowledge. The more you know, the more you are able to learn.

It is difficult to argue that knowledge gets in the way of reasoning because it is what we reason with

What Hirsch had seen was the ‘Matthew effect’ of accumulative advantage. He points out that ‘unless an early knowledge deficit is quickly overcome, the deficit grows ever larger’; and for him, ‘the cumulative principle explains the phenomenon of the widening gap’ in achievement across and within countries. Therefore, Hirsch concluded, ‘we can greatly accelerate the achievements of all students if we adopt knowledge-oriented modes of schooling.’ (2006 xii) There can be little doubt that knowledge can be the great equaliser and there is also the central paradox that de-emphasising factual knowledge can actually disable learners from looking things up effectively. No one can question that the web has placed a wealth of information just a click away. But to be able to use and absorb that information, pupils must already possess a storehouse of knowledge on which they can build.

There is an element of Catch 22 to all of this. Learning to learn is not an abstract skill. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development suggests that pupils already need to know something about the subject to look it up effectively because then they have more analogies and points of contact for connecting the new knowledge with what is already known. So perhaps all the heat of this apparent firestorm with all of the anti-fact slogans and the deliberately set-up polar oppositions between breadth and depth are misleading. Readiness to learn means already knowing a lot of what you are trying to learn. It surely entails already having the preparatory knowledge that enables further learning to occur.

The breadth-versus-depth problem in education is perennial and real, as is that of the integration of knowledge. Breadth is not the enemy of depth. Knowledge is not the death of skills. If pupils already know something about a subject, they are far more in control of the acquisition of new understanding and are able to better contextualise what they find out when they do look it up.

If pupils already know something about a subject, they are far more in control of the acquisition of new understanding

Bruner believed that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development and so argued against postponing the introduction of subjects on grounds that they may be too difficult at a specific age. He asserted that elements of any subject can be taught, and that core principles can be simple and intuitive in the first instance and explored in greater depth at a later stage in the spiral curriculum.

Classic texts on education such as Plato’s Republic and Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education emphasise the role of diligence and perseverance above the mere acquisition of knowledge. This did not undermine the importance of other equally significant educational goals and indeed these writers explicitly set forth the breadth and depth of knowledge children must acquire.

Core Knowledge Sequence

ED Hirsch’s reform movement, Core Knowledge, is conservative by nature and is squarely based on the fact-filled curriculum of content, not process. The centre of the model is the Core Knowledge Sequence, a ‘spiral’ of specific information, which builds towards broader and deeper knowledge, one that seeks to ensure a solid education for all pupils by using a grade-by-grade specific, shared core curriculum to help children establish strong foundations.

There has been a tendency for proponents of gifted education to stress pupil-directed and initiated learning by discovery with a clear focus on the acquisition of higher-order skills above all. This notion tends to be based on the assumption that for many highly able pupils the acquisition of the knowledge can be pretty easy, and also on the belief that the current curriculum actually demands far too little from these learners.

Just another blast from the past?

Hirsch argues that possession of general knowledge is far more decisive than background in terms of learning and academic achievement. It seems pretty clear that the concepts that Hirsch espouses are fairly antithetical to the cornerstone ideologies of the progressive movements. However, it is difficult to believe that teachers will willingly go back to the disparaging caricature of ‘how much information can we stuff into a child’s mind?’

Parents are not all equally skilled in being able to offer their children the kinds of support that will maximise their chances of success in school; many parents are ill-equipped to help. It is therefore of paramount importance, particularly for the more able pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, that school is there to pick up the reins of high challenge.

What are the implications for gifted education?

Two positive points must be made. Hirsch does not advocate a particular style of pedagogy and he does demand equal opportunity for learning for everyone. 

The first point means that many pupil-centred, high-challenge activities, pivotal to more progressive ideologies, can still be employed. It will still be vitally important that learners become critical thinkers and problem-solvers. However, it is clear that the topics covered will certainly not be chosen by the pupils, and the activities will be guided by the teacher. The combination of engaging teaching techniques with a broader-based knowledge is not the same as the teaching of facts in terms of ‘rote learning’ and ‘inert knowledge’.

It terms of the second point, it is hugely important not to confuse equal access and opportunity for all with offering the same opportunities for all. There is no reason whatsoever to expect that the most effective opportunities for one child will be the same for every other child.

Will it work?

Hirsch argues that possession of general knowledge is far more decisive than background in terms of learning and academic achievement. One set of masteries can unlock opportunities to practice the next even more effectively.

The key element to focus on will be whether this consciously devised curriculum will see improvements in the most poorly served and disadvantaged areas. It needs to have a galvanising impact on the results of the pupils with most to gain. It will be difficult to assess this in some ways simply because any concerted attention and effort will almost inevitably bring about some improvements.

We know that any ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach will ultimately fail. The more prescriptive the initiative, the more likely it is that teachers will recognise its lack of regional or contextual flexibility. Thoughtful adaptions, adoptions and amalgamations tend to prevail in smarter learning environments.

Having weighed up the Hirsch initiative, the one element that seems to be highly useful to remember is that one set of masteries can unlock opportunities to practice the next even more effectively. The arguments about the digital divide – unequal access to computer technology – is too superficial. It is simply not good enough to give all learners a chance to take advantage of the vast source of information that the internet offers without ensuring that they possess the knowledge necessary for them to make effective use of it. It is critical that all learners, particularly the most able, are taught how to assimilate and discriminate. Otherwise they face a confusion of ‘facts’ that they will be unable to sort, evaluate or absorb.

The breadth-versus-depth problem in education is perennial and real, as is that of the integration of knowledge. Breadth is not the enemy of depth. Knowledge is not the death of skills. If pupils already know something about a subject, they are far more in control of the acquisition of new understanding and are able to better contextualise what they find out when they do look it up.

If pupils already know something about a subject, they are far more in control of the acquisition of new understanding

Bruner believed that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development and so argued against postponing the introduction of subjects on grounds that they may be too difficult at a specific age. He asserted that elements of any subject can be taught, and that core principles can be simple and intuitive in the first instance and explored in greater depth at a later stage in the spiral curriculum.

Classic texts on education such as Plato’s Republic and Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education emphasise the role of diligence and perseverance above the mere acquisition of knowledge. This did not undermine the importance of other equally significant educational goals and indeed these writers explicitly set forth the breadth and depth of knowledge children must acquire.