[Update: In the comments to this post, Paul Hoss questions Sol Stern giving credit to Hirsch for Massachusetts's Education Reform Act. Stern responds below.]
In the new City Journal, Sol Stern files a comprehensive dispatch on the career of E.D. Hirsch, Jr. and judges the Core Knowledge founder to be “the most important education reformer of the last century.” Stern writes that “Hirsch’s theories, long merely persuasive, now have solid empirical backing in Massachusetts’s miraculous educational reforms.” So why, he wonders, isn’t Washington paying attention?
At his Senate confirmation hearing in February, Arne Duncan succinctly summarized the Obama administration’s approach to education reform: “We must build upon what works. We must stop doing what doesn’t work.” Since becoming education secretary, Duncan has launched a $4.3 billion federal “Race to the Top” initiative that encourages states to experiment with various accountability reforms. Yet he has ignored one state reform that has proven to work, as well as the education thinker whose ideas inspired it. The state is Massachusetts, and the education thinker is E. D. Hirsch, Jr.
“Hirsch’s theories, long merely persuasive, now have solid empirical backing in Massachusetts’s miraculous educational reforms,” Stern writes. One element of the state’s 1993 Education Reform Act was a “Hirschean knowledge-based curricula for each grade.”
In the new millennium, Massachusetts students have surged upward on the biennial National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—“the nation’s report card,” as education scholars call it. On the 2005 NAEP tests, Massachusetts ranked first in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math. It then repeated the feat in 2007. No state had ever scored first in both grades and both subjects in a single year—let alone for two consecutive test cycles.
Hirsch spoke at a luncheon event at the Manhattan Institute Wednesday, which was recorded for future broadcast by C-SPAN. In the meantime, a podcast of a lively conversation between Stern and Hirsch is on the City Journal website here.
While Massachusetts may have modeled their education reform on the importance of gaining specific knowledge, never was Hirsch’s name publicly mentioned by Thomas Birmingham or Mark Roosevelt, the authors of the 1993 bill. Both were then members of the state House of Representatives charged with developing the legislation. I followed the drafting of the bill closely and used Hirsch’s books in my class. I would have remembered if I ever saw his name anywhere related to our groundbreaking reform. I never did.
Comment by Paul Hoss — October 22, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
I’d cast a vote for Al Shanker as the most important education reformer of the past century. He was an individual truly at the forefront of the movement with ideas that ran counter to many of his contemporaries.
Comment by Paul Hoss — October 22, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
Sol Stern sent the following email in response to Paul Hoss’s comment:
“Sandra Stotsky, who wrote some of the curriculum standards, told me that she (and others in the group) was following in Hirsch’s footsteps. And at a Pioneer Institute conference last year commemorating the 1993 reform act, Tom Birmingham said he was deeply influenced by Hirsch’s concept of Cultural Literacy when drafting the legislation. Jamie Glass of the Institute also confirmed to me that the reforms were Hirsch’s legacy. And, by the way, I never said that Hirsch’s “name [was]publicly mentioned.” If I was trying to steer this bill through the political process I wouldn’t have mentioned Hirsch’s name either — since he was already anathema to the education establisment and every ed school in the state. Why put up a red flag for the opposition to rally around?”
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — October 22, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
I have always been impressed with Hirsch (and Shanker, for that matter), but I’m thinking of Ted Sizer today after hearing of his passing. Another great reformer, who went in a different but equally innovative direction.
Comment by Carl Rosin — October 22, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
There is no denying the significance of Hirsch’s influence in education reform. I agree with much of what he espouses. Again, I used his work in my classroom and believed in its contribution to improving our schools. However, I also realize this blog is a by-product of Hirsch’s philosophy (at the least), and it becomes somewhat questionable when it’s used to embellish his contribution. Let his actions speak for themselves, which I believe they have. He has contributed immeasurably to that which is good regarding education reform.
Comment by Paul Hoss — October 23, 2009 @ 7:30 am
I have to agree with Paul’s last comment. The Core Knowledge Blog in particular, and mentality in general, is poisoned by self-aggrandizement.
Instead of just pushing for reform and an agenda, the blog needlessly promotes and promotes and gets involved in polemics. It’s OK to be one of the big contributers. It’s OK to sometimes be wrong and incorporate thinking from other camps. But the Core Knowledge group keeps falling into an odd mentality which makes the blog less significant and overly dogmatic/self-important.
Your ideas are good. Chill on your efforts to take all the credit and be such a big shot. You’ll do better.
Comment by john homeschool — October 23, 2009 @ 11:09 am
John is correct in his remarks above. The CK dogma makes Hirsch and the entire movement appear not just defensive but enigmatically insecure. His recent book falls victim to the same. The CK philosophy is sound and well grounded. Let the rest of the country judge it from there. Reasonableness has a way of prevailing.
Comment by Paul Hoss — October 24, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Paul, I see your point that too much insistence on a point can weaken it. But I don’t think you’re being fair to Robert or to this blog overall. I have seen many lively discussions here, and Robert’s posts cover a range of topics and perspectives, including his own.
I have contributed a few posts, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some CK advocates, teachers, and administrators disagreed with me on certain points.
Yes, the simple argument for a curriculum has merit and should ideally prevail on its own. But we have so much resistance to curriculum, even local curriculum. Schools are all too willing to tell teachers how to teach. But the “what” is often left up for grabs.
And reformers are certainly not shy about pushing agendas and programs that have nothing to do with curriculum–things that may in fact distract from curriculum. For this reason, a little repetition and insistence here on this blog may not be so bad.
Comment by Diana Senechal — October 24, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Diana,
Robert does an outstanding job on this blog covering a variety of education topics. He is articulate, very knowledgeable, and clearly up to date. My remarks were in no way intended to diminish HIS contribution. I’m sure most of the regular visitors to this blog realize Robert is simply doing his job.
My point was that CK in its entirety should let its actions speak for themselves. The CK philosophy is grounded in pragmatism, a quality conspicuously absent from P21 and other loony bins attempting to occupy the classrooms of our schools. Most intelligent people have already figured this out.
Robert once cautioned me that the orthodoxy I espouse regarding individualizing instruction can sometimes diminish my message. He was absolutely correct.
Comment by Paul Hoss — October 24, 2009 @ 8:00 pm