Currie-Knight, K. (2017)
Review of Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories
Education Review 24 · 10.14507/er.v24.2149
Philosopher's review arguing Hirsch's two arguments -- content matters, and a single common curriculum is required -- are logically separable and not shown to be connected; explicitly defers to empirical readers on the knowledge claim itself.
Used in Dossier 1, Dossier 2, Dossier 4
This critic is attached to the exact objection and inference it challenges, not merely to the topic.
D1 · O7 — Content matters does not select one common list · targets A8 I6 I7
D2 · O3 — Content matters does not entail one common curriculum · targets A7 A8 I6 I7
D4 · O1 — Content matters does not entail one common curriculum · targets A2 A3 A9 I2 I3
D4 · O6 — Layered authority can coordinate without one itemized list · targets A2 A9 A10 I2 I7 I9
Source provenance
full text readThe publisher-hosted review PDF was read directly; the registry positions were extracted from this review.
Primary targets: P08 P23 P24 P01
Availability: open access · full text read
The publisher-hosted review PDF was read directly; the registry positions were extracted from this review.
Registry verification: yes
Availability: open access · full text read
The publisher-hosted review PDF was read directly; the registry positions were extracted from this review.
Registry verification: yes
Positions (6)
Hirsch's content emphasis and his common-curriculum argument are entirely separable claims that he treats, without argument, as necessarily connected.
“These arguments - that we need a strong emphasis on content, and that we need a common curriculum - are entirely separable, where Hirsch implies without argument them as if they are necessarily connected.”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
Believing content knowledge is the best instructional lever for reading does not commit one to also believing a single common curriculum is required.
“I could firmly believe that the best type of instruction for improving reading is one putting emphasis on content knowledge rather than general reading strategies. In no way would that commit me to Hirsch's second argument”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
One could believe in a common curriculum while envisioning it as emphasising skills rather than knowledge -- the commonality argument does not entail the content argument either.
“I could strongly believe that the best institutional approach to education is a common curriculum that everyone receives yet envision a common curriculum that emphasizes skills, more than knowledge, which we are to have in common.”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
As a philosopher, the empirical question of whether content knowledge really outweighs general reading strategies should be left to those more versed in the relevant science.
“As a philosopher, I will leave it to the more empirically-versed to assess Hirsch's claims about the importance of content (over general skills) for reading.”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
Hirsch's stress on individualised instruction is described as a 'quixotic idea' that pressures teachers to achieve the impossible and has worsened inequality.
“Not only has this stress on individualization of learning proven to be a 'quixotic idea that has put enormous pressure on teachers to achieve the impossible,' (p. 72), but it has exacerbated inequality.”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
Full civic functioning depends on initiation into the common language, regardless of whether one was born into it -- a point on which the reviewer agrees with Hirsch.
“All fully functioning citizens are functional because they have become initiated into the common language, whether or not they were born into it.”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books