Your hyperlink** to Hirsch’s article implies that the linked article shows that content-rich education leads to better reading.

I read the article, and I doubt it. When you get past the flash, all he offers is that reading SAT scores dropped in the ’60s, and so hey, it must just be curricula!

How about the increase in TV watching, the rise of divorce, the drop in reading for fun, women entering the workforce in droves, and the general decline of family? There were a myriad of other cultural events happening when reading scores took a nose dive, so I don’t buy the curriculm argument outright, and am wary of Hirsch (or anyone) who ignores so many other factors to make their thesis.

One great point Hirsch makes, though, is that the cumulative effect of a coherent curriculum that ultimately makes a big difference in verbal scores. This is so true, and one of the reasons state-run institutional school will always fail compared to parent-control options: the parents don’t change, the schools do. As kids move through schools, they get different admin, different teachers, and different methods that all change year-to-year. This will always be the case in a multicultural society that can’t agree on anything. The only thing that can save students stuck in this system is reading and learning on their own.

An example of the cumulative advantage that is impossible for public schools: I start my kids memorizing and using vocabulary at age six, 750 words per year, and cover 7500 words by age 16, constantly reviewing older words for retention every day, plus requiring these words to be used in their writing and to be found in their reading. Schools, on the other hand, don’t care what has learned last year, and never verify retention year-by-year. So they always lack this cummulative effect that pays dividends.

Also, speaking of the weakness of Hirsch’s “content” theory: my kids never study content. All their non-basic content is unschooled via reading. Yet they are somehow years ahead (for example, my second grader is doing sixth grade math and reading adult-level books, which is about average for my students). I would also put them head-to-head on raw content tests as well. My point is simple: content curriculum is not the solution, because the problem is not curricula in nature.

The institutional model of schooling itself has failed in our time; it belongs back in the 20th century. Communism imploded in 1992, yet we didn’t get the memo and still use these methods for our schools. No newfangled curricula can save it.