Core Knowledge curriculum "significantly" boosts reading comprehension, study finds

NYT: "Nonfiction [Core Knowledge] Curriculum Enhanced Reading Skills in New York City Schools."

I have always been a fan of the Core Knowledge program, which is based on the idea that students should learn content rather than just abstract "skills - this idea might seem like common sense, but traditional content such as the names and ideas of historical figures, narratives of historical events, etc. is often dismissed by education scholars as "trivia" that can just be Googled anyway. E.D. Hirsch Jr., the creator of the Core Knowledge program, argues that the content of the traditional core subject areas serves as the building blocks of literacy.

From the NYT article: "Half of the schools adopted a curriculum designed by the education theorist E. D. Hirsch Jr.’s Core Knowledge Foundation. The other 10 used a variety of methods, but most fell under the definition of 'balanced literacy'.... The study found that second graders who were taught to read using the Core Knowledge program scored significantly higher on reading comprehension tests than did those in the comparison schools. It also tested children on their social studies and science knowledge, and again found that the Core Knowledge pupils came out ahead."

National education standards will stifle innovation

My most recent education policy op-ed, "National education standards will stifle innovation," appeared today in the Michigan Education Report, a publication of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. In it, I write:

"Strict standards risk forcing students and teachers alike into a curricular straitjacket, alienating creative teachers and sapping the motivation of students. It is worth remembering that standards are nothing more than the products of committees of education “experts” quibbling around a conference table about which curriculum objectives to attach to each grade level. The term “grade level” is virtually synonymous with age, and any list of skills and knowledge all students must possess by a specific age is bound to be somewhat arbitrary.


It isn’t just “at-risk” students who have trouble moving through an arbitrary curriculum at an arbitrary rate; all students learn at their own paces, and individual students usually progress at different rates in different subjects. Most students do not fit the artificial mold of slow progress from “grade level” to “grade level,” accumulating skills and content knowledge at the same rate as the average child born in the same year.


Rigid, uniform and centrally designed curriculum standards make the curriculum less agile and flexible, less able to respond to the needs of students. The stricter the standards regime, the less schools are able to meet individual students where they are — a necessary first step to helping students grow academically."

The article also argues that the centralization of decisions about curriculum also risks making the teaching profession less attractive. You can read the entire article here.

If you enjoy the article, please pass it along to others who might be interested.  Thanks, as always, for reading.

A liberal education for every student

Education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.
--John Dewey, "My Pedagogic Creed"

Liberal Education is an approach to learning that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change. It provides students with broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture, and society) as well as in-depth study in a specific area of interest. A liberal education helps students develop a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills such as communication, analytical and problem-solving skills, and a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings. ...Today, a liberal education usually includes a general education curriculum that provides broad learning in multiple disciplines and ways of knowing, along with more in-depth study in a major.

--American Association of Colleges and Universities, "What is Liberal Education?"

It is long past time to do away with sloganeering about the primary purpose of education being to "prepare our kids for 21st-century jobs."

This cliché, and others like it, contributes to a narrative that cheapens the work of educators and shrinks the province of education to something that is done purely "in preparation" for something more "real," more substantial or meaningful - i.e., a job. But it is a colossal mistake to think and speak about K-16 education as though it were nothing more than extended job-training.

If we give students a liberal education aimed at educating their whole selves, building their foundational and critical literacy, increasing their access to and understanding of the world of ideas and art, and helping them develop their ability to understand and think about complex issues in and across academic disciplines, then we will have given them the best "vocational" education possible: students with excellent verbal and quantitative skills have the economic and social worlds wide open to them. They gain access to coveted internships and jobs, opportunities for studying and working overseas, and a stronger political voice.

Education - and therefore schooling, which is institutionalized education - is first and foremost about the pursuit of understanding. It is not about job-training. Job-training happens primarily on the job - but to give students access to rewarding and fulfilling work, and to prepare them to have as wide a choice of work as possible, the best preparation is a strong liberal education.