Core Knowledge^® Essays by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.

Core Knowledge Home > About > Essays & Articles by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.

Common Misconceptions About Core Knowledge

Before people become informed about what the Core Knowledge curriculum is and what's going on in Core Knowledge schools, they sometimes offer objections based on misconceptions or lack of accurate information. These pages offer responses to the most common objections, and invite people to find out more about how the Core Knowledge initiative can benefit their children, our schools, and the nation.

Our school already has a curriculum. We don't need to replace it with something else.

Does the school's curriculum state any specific knowledge goals? In most schools, the curriculum is defined in terms of very general processes and skills. Core Knowledge does not replace the skills-based curriculum; rather, it complements it by providing carefully sequenced and challenging knowledge in which to ground skills instruction.

Core Knowledge is meant to comprise about half of a school's curriculum, thus leaving ample freedom for local requirements and variations. Schools already using the Core Knowledge Sequence have welcomed its ready accommodation to existing state or local requirements.

A common core of knowledge will make schools into cookie cutters that turn out the same product everywhere.

Other countries teach a common core of knowledge: are all French, Japanese, and German children alike? A common core of knowledge that makes up only about half of American schooling will be no threat to children's individuality. A body of shared knowledge will be taught in a variety of ways by different teachers, and responded to in a variety of ways by different students. And, influential as schools are, children are shaped by a great deal outside of school as well.

Students are unique individuals and can't be expected all to learn the same material. Schooling should respond to the unique learning styles of each individual child.

There is no incompatibility between teaching a core curriculum and adapting instruction to the needs of individual students. Moreover, even as we look to teachers to bring out the best in each child as a learner, we also ask them to recognize the needs of each child as part of a larger community. All communities require some common ground. The community of the classroom requires, in particular, that its members share some common knowledge, because this knowledge makes communication and progress possible.

Specific academic content is not developmentally appropriate for young children.

What exactly does "developmentally appropriate" mean? Who is to decide what is "developmentally appropriate" for particular children? Are the topics recommended in existing curricula "developmentally appropriate"?

For example, to cite one state's Social Studies curriculum framework, is it "developmentally appropriate" for second graders to "learn about the community and its components—stores, recreational facilities, protective and educational services," or to "explore components of the community such as shopping centers or community services"?

Must children in the second grade have their horizons bounded by the local mall, as opposed to the much greater reach of the Core Knowledge Sequence for second grade, which has children learning about China and India, ancient Greece, and the Civil War?

The question of "developmental appropriateness" applies less to content than to methods of instruction. That is, within reason, specific content is itself neither developmentally appropriate nor inappropriate. Given specific content guidelines, teachers are generally aware of how to deliver the content in developmentally appropriate ways: for example, not lecturing to kindergartners about the seven continents, but singing songs, making paper-mache globes, cutting out and coloring continent-shaped patterns, and making charts with animals characteristic of different continents.

A curriculum that specifies what is to be taught at each grade level takes away the creative freedom of teachers.

Some educators argue that curricular decisions should be left up to the individual classroom teacher. They say that it is part of a teacher's "professional autonomy" to decide what should be taught. Yes, the individual teacher should have significant freedom to decide how to teach, and some say in what to teach as well. But to leave all decisions about what to teach up to the individual teacher is to place too great a burden on the teacher, to remove the opportunity for professional cooperation among teachers, and to lose sight of what schools need to be fair and effective.

Teaching a common core of knowledge, such as that articulated in the Core Knowledge Sequence, is compatible with a variety of instructional methods and additional subject matters. Teachers in Core Knowledge schools report that making the commitment to teach a shared body of specific knowledge is not confining but liberating. Given specific content guidelines, teachers can fashion a variety of creative lessons and teaching approaches, and collaborate by sharing ideas and resources. In general, teachers in Core Knowledge schools report a sense empowerment, both personal and professional.

Knowledge is changing so fast that the best approach is not to teach specific knowledge but to teach children to "learn how to learn."

"Learning how to learn" is an admirable aim but a misleading slogan. If learning is to proceed on any principle besides random chance, then schools need to follow a carefully sequenced body of knowledge. Why? Because children learn new knowledge by building upon what they already know. It's important to begin building foundations of knowledge in the early grades because that's when children are most receptive, and because academic deficiencies in the first six grades can permanently impair the quality of later schooling. The most powerful tool for later learning is not an abstract set of procedures (such as "problem solving") but a broad base of knowledge in many fields. The idea that "knowledge is changing" is only partly true, and, as it pertains to schools, mostly misleading. It is true that some ideas and terms — such as sub-atomic particles, "SCUD" missile, software, or the Commonwealth of Independent States — did not exist or were not widely known even as recently as a couple of generations ago. But the obvious fact that the modern world is changing — sometimes, as in the case of the breakup of the Soviet Union, in dramatic and dizzying ways — in no ways leads to the conclusion that "knowledge is changing so fast that we can't keep up with it" or that "what we learn today will be obsolete by the year 2,000." The basic principles of science and constitutional government, the important events of world history, the essential elements of mathematics and of oral and written expression — all of these are part of a solid core that does not change rapidly, but instead forms the basis for true lifelong learning.

In curriculum, "less is more"; schools should not try to cover a lot of content but instead should help students master a few areas in depth and detail.

Many among us perhaps share grim memories of, for example, the high school history course as a superficial blitz through a heavy textbook crammed with facts, names, and dates. Courses like this are what make many people respond warmly to the idea that "less is more." Surely, we think, we would have learned more if we had been confronted with less, if we had been allowed to investigate specific issues and questions in depth and detail. Does it follow, then, that when it comes to knowledge, less is more? Like most slogans in education, there is some truth to "less is more," but also some danger when the slogan is wrongly construed or thoughtlessly applied.

It is hard to disagree with the view that deep knowledge is better than shallow. But — particularly in the elementary years — it does not follow that deep knowledge of a few things is better than broad knowledge of many things. In fact, one needs both — both deep knowledge and broad knowledge.

To help children gain breadth of knowledge is to help them lay the foundation on which they can build new knowledge, including more in-depth, specialized knowledge. The best time to acquire broad general knowledge is in the early years, when children are most curious and receptive. In these early years, the idea of "less is more" does not apply, and is especially irrelevant, even potentially damaging, to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who may be left behind while some advantaged students learn a desirable breadth of knowledge at home. The idea of "less is more" is misleading because it flatters a strain in some educational theory that disparages challenging content and focuses instead on feelings, attitudes, and "self- esteem." But there is one sense in which "less is more" applies even to the early years. This sense is not in opposition to broad and rich knowledge, but in encouraging selectivity about the way in which broad and rich knowledge is chosen. Educational planners need to take on the responsibility of selecting a rich core of important knowledge, defined in an explicit sequence. It is this particular sense of "less is more" that informs the process of selection and consensus- building that went into the Core Knowledge Sequence.

The content of the Core Knowledge Sequence was arbitrarily decided by a few people who have no right to tell others what they should know.

The content specified in the Core Knowledge Sequence represents a broad consensus of diverse groups and interests, including parents, teachers, scientists, professional curriculum organizations, and experts on America's multicultural traditions. Provisional versions of the curriculum were reviewed and revised by panels of teachers. In March 1990, the curriculum was further revised by almost 100 people, of diverse backgrounds and interests, attending a national conference sponsored by the Core Knowledge Foundation. As more schools teach Core Knowledge, teachers participate in occasional updates of the Sequence. In short, Core Knowledge, far from being arbitrary, is more democratic and broadly representative than any current alternative we know of.

Certainly the consensus behind Core Knowledge Sequence is more diverse and democratic than the de facto curricular decisions made by a small group of educational specialists and commercial publishers who issue the textbooks that often drive curriculum in schools today.

It is elitist to specify a body of content.

A central motivation behind the Core Knowledge initiative is anti-elitist. The goal is to guarantee equal access for all to knowledge necessary for higher literacy and learning. Such knowledge is currently possessed only by the educated elite—and that's the problem. Our aim is to make that knowledge available to all through the institution available to all: universal public schooling.

Core Knowledge is critically important for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. As Albert Shanker, past president of the American Federation of Teachers, has written, as long as curriculum remains completely a matter of local choice, "schools and school districts are free to hold students up to high standards or, as often happens in the case of disadvantaged children, to decide the kids can't do the work and give them a watered-down curriculum. The trouble with this is that it virtually guarantees these children will fall behind their more advantaged peers—and never catch up" (New York Times, Dec. 16, 1991). In a Core Knowledge school, however, all children are taught a core of challenging, interesting knowledge that provides a foundation to build on year by year.

Our population is changing, and schooling needs to change to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population. What we need is a curriculum that is more multicultural.

Schools should foster respect for diversity, and a curriculum should include the study of many cultures. Typically, however, state and district curriculum guidelines do not define specific multicultural content. Rather, they prescribe a set of nice-sounding but vague goals and attitudes, such as the following from one state's "Curricular Framework for Social Studies":

Understand the characteristics and development of cultures throughout the world.
Understand that societies reflect contributions from many cultures.
Understand and appreciate various dimensions of world interdependence.
Understand historic and current events from the perspective of diverse cultural and national groups.

These are admirable goals that nod in the direction of multiculturalism—but where is the specific multicultural content? Without some specificity, the door is open to repetition and gaps. How many times will children study the Woodland Indians, and yet perhaps never examine the different ways of life of the Anasazi or the Cheyenne? Will children study Mexico but not Japan, Kenya but not China? Or Kenya in second grade then again in fourth? If we truly want our children to know about and appreciate many cultures, then we need to specify which cultures, and teach them in a way that broadens their perspective on the world and its diversity, rather than bores them with repetition or leaves them unaware of people and places that most educated people know about.

The job of the teacher is to teach children, not subject matter.

There's something warm and appealing in that slogan. After all, it gives top priority to children—and don't we all want the highest priority of teachers to be the best interests of our children?

But there's something disconcerting in the way the imperative to "teach children, not subject matter" is phrased. It suggests an either-or situation: either you teach children, or you teach subject matter. The implication is that teachers who teach "subject matter" are somehow not teaching children!

But what exactly does it mean to "teach children"? Are we in fact teaching children if we do not teach subject matter?

What a strange pass American education has come to when many educators assume that between children and subject matter there is some fundamental incompatibility, as though they were, as the old saying goes, like east and west, and never the twain shall meet. One would have thought, rather, that the challenge for the teacher is to link east and west — that is, to bring children and subject matter together, through practice, hard work, and imaginative and creative endeavors that kindle in children the love of subject matter that the teacher herself or himself feels (or should feel).

Students don't learn from rote memorization of isolated facts. What children need is not a bunch of facts but critical thinking skills.

Those who think that the only way to teach specific content is through rote memorization need to observe the many imaginative, resourceful, and creative ways that teachers in Core Knowledge schools have found to engage their students in active learning of important knowledge: through dramatizations, art projects, writing workshops, collaborative learning groups, research projects, etc. Yes, children may occasionally memorize a poem or the Preamble to the Constitution—but these are valid learning experiences, which, in fact, children enjoy, and from which they get a sense of pride and achievement.

Behind the outcry against "rote memorization" lies a deep prejudice — a prejudice against fact. Many educators object to any curriculum that says, for example, that children should learn the seven continents, because that is "mere fact." To teach facts, they say, is to reduce education to "Trivial Pursuit." Granted, some facts are trivial. Who starred in "Car 54 Where Are You?" That's trivial. But, who was Dred Scott and what was the significance of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision? That's worth knowing: it gives you insight into the causes of the Civil War as well as historical perspective on race relations in the United States.

No one wants schools to think of curriculum solely in terms of facts. We also want—and students need—opportunities to use the facts, to apply them, question them, discuss them, doubt them, connect them, analyze them, verify or deny them, solve problems with them. All these activities, however, rely upon having some facts to work with. Without factual knowledge about an issue or problem, you can't think critically about it—you can only have an uninformed opinion.

Many teachers may not have learned much about Ancient Egypt or the Industrial Revolution or photosynthesis. So how can you put such content in a curriculum? You can't expect teachers to teach what they don't know.

Educators are fond of talking about preparing children to be "lifelong learners." Why don't we have equal confidence in our teachers as lifelong learners?

In schools that build a program on the Core Knowledge Sequence, many teachers express initial anxiety about having to prepare to teach topics they're unfamiliar with. But, once they make the effort (and it does take hard work), they often express tremendous enthusiasm and a rekindled love of learning, which carries over to their students.

A second-grade teacher at a Core Knowledge school in the South Bronx wrote to tell us that:

Core Knowledge has made a major difference to my students and myself. I am very excited about teaching interesting subjects. The content is thrilling and fascinating for me as a person and a teacher. I feel that my interest and energy rub off on my students. They are "turned on" because I am "turned on." In addition, I have also developed a close working relationship with other teachers. There is congruence and unity among us. My students are learning high level concepts. They are being challenged and they love it!

Core Knowledge is just another passing educational fad.

There are plenty of educational fads around, with no grounding in solid research or real scholarship. Core Knowledge is not one of them. The idea behind Core Knowledge is supported by the top reading researchers in the nation: in the recent report called Becoming a Nation of Readers, they observe, "Even for beginners, reading should not be thought of simply as a 'skill subject.' It is difficult to imagine, for instance, that kindergartners could be called literate for their age if they did not know Goldilocks and the Three Bears or Peter Rabbit" (p. 61).

Perhaps the most important research attesting to the power of Core Knowledge is the long experience of educational systems in other countries — all of which teach a common core of knowledge — consistently rated as the best in the world both for excellence and fairness.

The following papers of related interest are available from the Core Knowledge Foundation:

return to previous page

Last updated: Fri, May 23 2008



Sign up for COMMON KNOWLEDGE, the Foundation's E-newsletter

Core Knowledge® Essays by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.