Although there is some repetition from previous books, as other reviewers have pointed out, sometimes repetition is necessary to get the point across. I believe he did this purposely. His argument remains the same across his books- that the American school system needs to establish some common curriculum content and sequencing in order to allow students to gradually acquire knowledge. That said, the main points of the book are different than his others.
In this book, Hirsch explains how our current education system rides on the beliefs of Romanticism, that learning naturally unfolds. If this were true, then there would be no need for formal education, nor explicit instruction. It is true that some learning happens through implicit instruction. Hirsch explains how vocabulary develops through exposure to rich content and communication.
When considering how reading develops, he positions himself in a moderate position, recognizing the need for phonics instruction and grammar while still considering situated meaning and rich material. For Hirsch, one thing that can be removed from school instruction is the endless string of skill-based strategies, because he believes reading isn't about a skill, but rather it is about comprehension. We need to focus on developing background knowledge for that which is presumed to be self-evident. He also points out how testing is necessary, but that the standards don't match what is tested. How can they, when they are so generalized and vague? He points out that teachers are left in an uncomfortable predicament, "The tests are coming! We don't know what topics the children will be asked to read about. The tests will probe reading comprehension skills, so we must teach those skills!" (94). When nobody is sure what content will be on the examinations, and the examinations determine funding, there is no other reasonable approach to reading instruction than to view it as skills based. He points out that if standards were clear and tied to the tests, then schools would be able to fulfill the requirements for meeting AYP. Beyond the accountability issue, there is also the issue of a common culture. In order to trust each other, we need to share some things in common. He argues for somewhere between 40 to 60 percent. This would allow more than enough room for diversity and local tradition. But, he does question the concept of local tradition. Local districts don't have specific standards listed either. They want local control, then leave it to the teacher to decide what to teach. For Hirsch, this is a problem.As a high school teacher who has had high success on standardized tests, I am still critical of these tests. I don't mind standards, but I do wish they were more specific. I find myself playing a guessing game about what the state really wants. I'm not sure, so I try to find a combination of texts that I believe will build a diverse background. Combining selections from the textbook and things that I bring to the table, I do the best I can. But, my students are capable of so much more. They are hungry for information, and get excited when they see connections to their world or to other subjects. They like to be challenged, as long as the task is within their reach. There are many things wrong with our school system. One of them is that we do need a more coherent curriculum. Social Studies and English should work hand in hand to build background knowledge based on classical literature, history, and American values. The problem is the "nuts and bolts" question. What are we going to teach? Who will decide? In Cultural Literacy, Hirsch provided his list of suggestions. Harold Bloom also has a list of suggestions. Looking at both those lists, I agree with some choices, but not others. As a digital native, I'd like to see more contemporary choices represented. In order to settle this question, I propose that an annual or biannual convention be put together with the purpose of determining the list. Let a combination of people be represented. Make sure to include teachers in addition to professors, business leaders and politicians. Include leaders of minority and majority interest groups. Get the discussion started.