External to Hirsch’s corpus. This work was selected by an editorial review for D2; Hirsch did not cite it in the ten books indexed here. Its zero occurrence, book, and load counts are intentional. No corpus occurrence has been inferred or created.
Identity review: Codex multi-agent D2 evidence audit; not human-signed · 2026-08-24
Repository metadata, peer-reviewed abstract and official evaluation result tables were checked for assignment, sample, missingness and overall/subgroup effects.
Access checked: full text partially read · 2026-08-24 · open checked access point
Official report tables and peer-reviewed abstract checked; the final journal text was not read end to end.
Independence category: independent Independent school-randomized evaluation of a Hirsch-inspired intervention, conducted outside CKF and included specifically as counterevidence to publication and implementation selection.
Can Explicit Teaching of Knowledge Improve Reading Attainment? · single work
Review authority: Codex multi-agent D2 evidence audit; not human-signed
See, B. H., Gorard, S., & Siddiqui, N. (2017). Can explicit teaching of knowledge improve reading attainment? An evaluation of the Core Knowledge curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 372-393.
Peer-reviewed version of the independent school-randomized evaluation.
doi.org/10.1002/berj.3278 · checked record
Review state: full text partially read
See, Gorard and Siddiqui 2017 independent evaluation · challenges A3, challenges A4, qualifies A5, challenges A6, qualifies A8
independent null and implementation test
official report and abstract checked; partial primary review — Official evaluation tables and peer-reviewed abstract; final journal text not read end to end
primary independent
Independent evaluation of a Hirsch-inspired programme outside CKF.
One school-randomized knowledge-rich adaptation produced no average literacy gain under variable real-world implementation.
That sustained, well-implemented content-rich curricula never work.
Open limitation: The overall effect was -.03. The FSM +.06 is explicitly an effect among FSM pupils considered in isolation; FSM pupils were not randomized as such, so it is neither a treatment-by-FSM interaction nor a gap-change estimate. Missing outcomes were about 18%.
No occurrence is shown because Hirsch did not cite this work in the ten-book corpus. The dossier appraisal above records why the editorial layer selected it.