This post was mentioned on Twitter by kriley19: Joanne Jacobs: Knowledge matters http://bit.ly/2oRkv4 Full http://bit.ly/3OUiWJ...

I agree that if we all study the same things we will have acquired a shared set of deficits. But one of the motivations behind the common knowledge curriculum is to make it easier for more people to study by themselves, as they will have more of the background knowledge that is useful for comprehension of new material – writers who introduce new ideas often do so by using analogies and metaphors, so if you know what is being analogised to or metaphored to you are better placed to understand the new idea the writer is introducing. A core curriculum is a starting point, not the end of an education. And the core knowledge people say that the curriculum is designed to take a bit over half the school’s curriculum, leaving time for some variation in teaching.

I’m not in a position to comment on the Core Knowledge’s strategy in terms of advocacy vs funding, they don’t answer that question on their website.

I can see your point that the view of some advocates can be very annoying. Do you know of any other curriculae that have been developed on the basis of establishing what students could do with knowing to gather further information?

Teasing aside, I think the idea of teaching content is important (as I said originally), but to think that we can cover everything that is important is simply kidding ourselves. Certainly if we all study the same things, we will have a shared knowledge base which can foster a common understanding. But we also will have acquired a shared set of deficits in our background.

I don’t have any problem with the CK curriculum — I’m sure that it’s better than many others that people might use. What I have a problem with is the idea that the CK curriculum is the ONLY curriculum that can provide a basic frame of reference for understanding our world, which seems to be an attitude held by many CK followers.

It also bothers me that the detailed curriculum isn’t freely available. If the CK people are really trying to get America to adopt their curriculum, why not let everyone know what the curriculum is without spending a couple hundred dollars on materials? The cynic in me laments that someone might be trying to make some money off of the home-schooling boom.

I am not sure what you mean by “ED Hirsch hasn’t been put in charge of deciding what the worthy things are, I hope.” Ed Hirsh clearly isn’t in charge of curriculum decisions for the whole of the USA. He has taken it on himself to propose and advocate for a list of what the worthy things to learn are, but he says in developing this list he relied on many groups, including teachers, and the final core knowledge curriculum was reviewed by almost 100 people. And of course this proposed list is up for public debate. Isn’t this a good thing, that he’s seen a problem and tried to fix it, instead of sitting back and saying “Not my problem, mate.”?

If were possible to distinguish which is “root and trunk” knowledge and which is “branch and leaf” knowledge, don’t you think we ought to concentrate on conveying the former to our youth?

Stern claims: “(MA’s) standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy.”

Who says that? Which MA reformers?

MA’s math and English standards are NOT Core Knowledge.

Few MA schools USE Core Knowledge curriculum (again, it’s good stuff).

Stern cites the social studies standards in MA in his article, but they are widely IGNORED. Most MA schools use the same social studies texts everyone else does.

Most of all kids do TERRIBLE in social studies MCAS and their science tests, they have VERY low knowledge.

So if you’re keeping score at home:

a. Hirsch = wise. True.
b. MA proves Hirsch’s point. False.

It’s just as true as those who claim that MA’s high scores prove strong unions controlling state and local gov’t are a good thing!

And, before I can hit the concepts in the standards I need to teach.