There are two main bodies of evidence offering support for our approach: the theoretical and the practical.
Over the last half-century, scientists have made great strides in understanding how human intelligence works. Much of this research was inspired by the pioneers of computers, who in trying to create artificial intelligence realised that they had little idea how real human intelligence worked. The research that has been done on this is solid and substantial. It shows that human intelligence is far more knowledge-bound than was previously supposed – and indeed than is generally still supposed by many within education. Some of the most interesting research in this field was conducted by the Dutch scientist, Adriaan de Groot, who carried out a series of experiments on groups of chess players.
In one experiment, de Groot displayed for five to ten seconds a chess position from an actual game in which twenty-five pieces were left on the board. The subjects were asked to reproduce this position from memory. Grand masters performed this feat with 100% accuracy, masters with 90% accuracy. Weaker players were lucky if they could correctly place five or six pieces. Then de Groot varied the conditions of his pieces in one respect. Instead of placing the twenty five pieces in positions from an actual game, he placed them on the board randomly. The results were unexpected. All his subjects – grand masters, masters, class A players and class B players – performed the same as novices did, placing only five or six pieces correctly. This experiment has been duplicated in several different laboratories, and structurally in several other fields, including algebra, physics medicine, always with the same striking results. When the configuration of a task is significantly changed, past skills are not transferred to the new problem. In normal circumstances, of course, elements from past problems appear in present ones, and experts perform well with duplicated elements. But beyond similar or analogous circumstances, skill is not transferred.1
These insights have particular implications for the teaching of reading. Once pupils have learnt to decode, there is a strong assumption in English education that the way to improve as a reader is to practise abstract reading strategies or reading skills such as searching for the main idea and skimming the text. However, this approach ignores the knowledge-bound nature of reading. All the research shows that once a child has learnt to decode, the biggest factor in whether they score highly on a reading test or not is whether they know a lot about the topic in question. Good readers are those who know a lot. In one study, researchers gave a group of students the same text to read.2 According to previous standardized tests, half of these students were good readers and half poor readers. The text they had to read was a story about baseball. The results showed that the students’ knowledge of baseball determined how much they understood of the story. Whether they were good readers or bad readers didn’t matter nearly as much as what they knew.’ 3
The above theoretical evidence underpins the US Core Knowledge Curriculum, which in turn has served as our inspiration.4 This curriculum, which was meticulously researched and designed by the educator E.D. Hirsch, has been implemented in a variety of American schools with great success.5 The principles of this curriculum were adopted by Massachussetts in 1993, since then it has regularly come top of the American schools league tables:
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. On another reliable test, the Trends in International Math and Science Studies, the state’s fourth-graders last year ranked second globally in science and third in math, while the eighth-graders tied for first in science and placed sixth in math. (States can volunteer, as Massachusetts did, to have their students compared with national averages.) The United States as a whole finished tenth.6
A number of controlled studies at schools that use Core Knowledge show similar success. In an Oklahoma study pupils studying the Core Knowledge Curriculum made ‘significantly greater one year gains in reading comprehension, vocabulary, science, math concepts and social studies’ than a similar control group.7 In two studies by John Hopkins University, pupils were also found to make above average progress. In the first study, ‘students at Core Knowledge schools outgained their control school counterparts’ on reading comprehension tests.8 In the second national study, researchers found that in schools which implemented the Core Knowledge Sequence well ‘students achieved improved scores on all tests.’9 A 2004 six-year national review of Core Knowledge Schools concluded that ‘Core Knowledge schools performed well above the national average, with their collective performance increasingly higher than the norm… Based on these findings, there appears to be a strong relationship between student performance and the Core Knowledge curriculum.’ 10
The Core Knowledge programme has also been shown to reduce the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. In a controlled study of New York schools, disadvantaged pupils studying the Core Knowledge programme were less likely to fall behind on reading comprehension.11 A statistical analysis of Virginia schools showed that schools implementing Core Knowledge ‘performed significantly above what would be predicted by the socioeconomic composition of its students.’12 An evaluation of implementation in Texas concluded that the Core Knowledge Curriculum increased achievement and stopped disadvantaged pupils from falling behind.13
Qualitative evidence is also encouraging. Core Knowledge has been shown to improve the motivation and enthusiasm of teachers and pupils. In the national study by Johns Hopkins University, one teacher said "I have worked in a school in the same district that does not use Core, and the difference is amazing. With the enrichment Core provides, students are more active, focused, and have a high interest level."14 In the same study, the researchers ‘asked teachers to respond to the following open-ended question: “If you were asked for advice from a friend who teaches at a school considering using the Core Knowledge curriculum, what would you say?” The most common response listed by teachers was literally, “Go for it!”’
Its results have even surprised some of the staff implementing it. ‘Implementing Core Knowledge required teachers to believe that students could learn challenging material at a young age. Many teachers reported that they were initially sceptical that the Core Knowledge material was developmentally appropriate, particularly for students in the primary grades. However, their opinions tended to change over time.’15 In fact, teachers went on to conclude that ‘children of all abilities thrive in a Core environment and soak up information like sponges.16 One head teacher said that “since we implemented Core Knowledge, our scores for all students have consistently gone up, especially in social studies, science, and math. The scores surprise us because they constantly go up. We are scoring well above the national norms in social studies, above the 75th percentile.
That is very good for our diverse population. These are not all middle-class kids. Half of our students taking the Iowa Test of Basic Skills each year come from low-income homes. Our scores defy what you might expect.”’17
Most recently, a Core Knowledge reading programme was piloted for three years in ten New York City public schools in the years from kindergarten to grade 2 (equivalent to Years 1-3 in England). At the conclusion of the pilot, Core Knowledge students’ literacy gains ‘were more than double the gains of students at demographically similar comparison schools.’18
1 Hirsch, E.D., Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987, p.61.
2 Recht, D.R., & Leslie, L. (1988). ‘Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16-20.
3 Willingham, Daniel T. Why Don’t Our Students Like School?, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009, p.35
4 Core Knowledge Foundation. Core Knowledge Sequence: Content and Skill Guidelines for Grades K–8, Core Knowledge Foundation, 2010.
5 E.D. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987).
6 Stern, Sol. ‘E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy’, City Journal, Autumn 2009.
www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_hirsch.html
7 Taylor, Gracy and George Kimball, The Equity Effects of Core Knowledge, Oklahoma City Public Schools, May 2000.
8 Martha Abele, Mac Iver, Sam Stringfield, Barbara McHugh, ‘Core Knowledge Curriculum: Five-Year Analysis of Implementation and Effects in Five Maryland Schools’, Johns Hopkins University, Report No. 50 December 2000.
www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report50.pdf
9 Stringfield, S., A. Datnow, G. Borman, & L. Rachuba, ‘National evaluation of Core Knowledge Sequence implementation: Final report’, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools, 1999.
10 Wedman, John, and Alex Waigandt, ‘Core Knowledge Curriculum and School Performance: A National Study’, University of Missouri, September 2004.
www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/31/CK_National_Study_2004.pdf
11 Vafiadi, Polixeni, ‘Core Knowledge Curriculum and Student Achievement As Measured By The NYS ELA Test’, Proceedings of Global TIME 2011 (pp. 225-247). AACE.
12 Core Knowledge Foundation. ‘Results at Core Knowledge Schools: Improving Performance and Narrowing the Equity Gap’
www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/36/ImprovePerformanceNarrowEquity_1998.pdf
13 Schubnell, Gail Owen, 'Hawthorne Elementary School: The Evaluator's Perspective', Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 1:1, 1996, pp. 33-40.
14 Datnow, Amanda, Geoffrey Borman, Sam Stringfield. ‘School Reform Through a Highly Specified Curriculum: Implementation and Effects of the Core Knowledge Sequence’ The Elementary School Journal, 101:2, November 2000, pp. 167-191.
15 Ibid.
16 Abele, Martha, Mac Iver, Sam Stringfield, Barbara McHugh, ‘Core Knowledge Curriculum: Five-Year Analysis of Implementation and Effects in Five Maryland Schools’, Johns Hopkins University, Report No. 50, December 2000.
www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report50.pdf
17 Core Knowledge Foundation. ‘Results at Core Knowledge Schools: Improving Performance and Narrowing the Equity Gap’
www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/36/ImprovePerformanceNarrowEquity_1998.pdf
18 ‘The NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: K-Grade 2 Results’
www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/712/
CK%20Early%20Literacy%20Pilot%203%2012%2012.pdf