Language Development

Argument Evaluation

Knowledge vs. skills: a disastrous compromise 

In an article entitled ‘Teach Knowledge not “Mental Skills”’ first written for the New York Times opinion page, E. D. Hirsch details how a failing public school in the South Bronx had been transformed by a ‘core knowledge’ curriculum, which gave strict guidelines for the knowledge that every child should acquire during each grade. The author accuses the alternative, skill orientated curriculum of being inconsistent due to vague instructions, and confronting the teacher with the dilemma of having to choose between those students who need extra support to access the knowledge, and those who require higher level work. It is rather simplistic to suggest that a curriculum is either skill or knowledge centred and that placing emphasis upon one will result in success; as Hirsch states, “skills...depend on a wealth of relevant knowledge” (116), but equally knowledge is discovered, understood and used through skills.

The author presents a very strong and engaging argument; Hirsch’s passion for the cause is demonstrated by phrases such as "disastrous compromise" (116), "excruciatingly slow" (116) and "scornfully dismiss" (116) when condemning the skill centred curriculum. This emotive language could be considered exaggeration; however the context of where the article appeared - a newspaper opinion page - explains Hirsch’s powerful expression. Nevertheless, the author must be criticised for the generalisations that he makes with regard to his claim that the knowledge curriculum is modelled on “the best and fairest school systems in Europe and Asia” (116). This sweeping statement is not supported by any specific examples or details, and therefore weakens the argument.

There are several instances where Hirsch does use statistics to reinforce his assertions about the academic success of the students who have been taught using the knowledge curriculum. These facts do support the claim that academic attainment has increased in the school where this programme has been used. Again, as this is not intended to be an academic piece of writing, the reader must trust that the pieces of evidence are accurate, as no source is given. Although the improvements at Public School 67 cannot be denied, it is unjust to assume that the low standards were a direct consequence of the previous curriculum. As Hirsch highlights, this particular school is one with high cultural and ethnic diversity, where every pupil is recognised as being of low socio-economic status (SES). With the population of the school being such, it is likely that the social and academic problems often associated with low SES and cultural diversity influenced the attainment of the students equally, if not more than the curriculum. Perhaps a curriculum which promoted knowledge acquisition and skill development would see these standards raise even more?

The core knowledge curriculum is an appealing tool in terms of teacher and school accountability; student success is easily quantifiable as it is based entirely upon whether facts have or have not been learned, unlike skills, which are less easily measurable. This curriculum is presented in a rather idealistic manner by Hirsch, who claims that the teacher will not have to make the “disastrous compromise” (116) between slow progress and leaving some pupils behind (which were cited as common outcomes of the skills based curriculum). However, this method sets a rigid pace for learning that does not account for the individual learning needs of all pupils, and results in those who have not learned the specified knowledge content at that time as failing. To use Hirsch’s own phrase, this is a “hit-or-miss approach” (116). With such a prescriptive programme, the teacher is less able to ensure that the differing needs of the pupils are met and that each child is supported. The teacher’s professional judgement of what is best for his/her students and what is appropriate for the specific learning context of his/her classroom is removed. Skills are abilities or processes which one develops, they are something that all children can posses but in varying degrees. As a criterion for success, more children are likely to be viewed as making progress, which may be more encouraging for those who otherwise would be labelled as failures.

One crucial element of the core knowledge curriculum that Hirsch fails to address is the content of this syllabus and what is deemed to be vital knowledge. The Core Knowledge Foundation, founded by Hirsch himself, who developed this curriculum have undertaken a huge responsibility in deciding what it is that all children should be taught. The only examples of the content given by Hirsch are “identify the seven continents” (115) and “learn the difference between evergreen and deciduous trees” (115). The author effectively conveys the purpose of such a curriculum, the reasons for employing it and draws upon some convincing statistics which indicate success, yet the reader is not informed of the content, therefore they are unable to decide whether they are in support of it or not.

‘Teach Knowledge not “Mental Skills”’ presents a compelling argument against the use of a curriculum which only emphasizes skills. The reasons against such a syllabus are numerous and Hirsch expresses them with such powerful and damning descriptions that the reader is forced to acknowledge the drawbacks. However, Hirsch fails to persuade the reader that the alternative, core knowledge curriculum will overcome the undesirable outcomes of the current syllabus. In fact, it could be argued that the same problems will arise from both. Therefore, instead of viewing knowledge and skills as conflicting approaches to curriculum, it may be more useful to envisage a syllabus which promotes the two. Knowledge is vital; pupils need something concrete to work with in order to develop their skills. Equally, skills are crucial so that the knowledge learned can be used and new knowledge can be created.