SOUDER: Little common about Common Core

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mark SouderWhile I have been a bookaholic since elementary school, few books made as much of an impression on me as E.D. Hirsch’s “Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know.” It was released in book form in 1987, rising to second on the New York Times Best Sellers List behind Allan Bloom’s less-readable but also influential and important “Closing of the American Mind.”

It is instructive to note that the current top two are Bill O’Reilly’s book in which he tries to write the story of Jesus better than God did and a book about the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart.

At the time, Cultural Literacy was viewed as a conservative book because, in an era of cultural relativism and hand-wringing about what constituted even “facts,” it argued that the nation needed a core common knowledge or we would eventually disintegrate into factions that could not communicate.

More celebrated at the time was a study in Los Angeles asking high school students to analyze a paragraph related to the Civil War. The problem was that most did not understand core facts—Grant and Lee, War Between the States, Appomattox—so the newspaper article was absolutely meaningless.

When a member of the U.S. House Education Committee, I insisted Hirsch be included in an early hearing as we began to formulate education policy. By the mid-1990s, he had begun to move into his Core Knowledge Series, which has been foundational in the theory behind national testing and core knowledge curriculum.

I fully understand the need for a common core of knowledge in an increasingly diverse America, but when it is not even clear our supposed leaders have read many books or even the Constitution, the idea of elected politicians’ determining a national straitjacket of what constitutes core knowledge is downright scary.

I fought Bill Clinton’s effort for a national test with every bone in my body. We succeeded. When President George W. Bush took over, I was among those called to the White House to discuss education. Basically, he looked straight at me and said, roughly: We are going to have a national test, I am president, and you are not. I lost.

The need for a national core of knowledge motivated John Dewey, the humanist liberal who drove America into standardization during the immigrant waves of the early 1900s. The immortal words of Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1969 proclaimed that “a spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

This is still true of much of our political and educational leadership.

When we debated national testing, I was told that my fears, especially that Christianity would be undermined, were wrong. Staff walked me over to a computer to look at the American history test, challenging me to prove my case on the spot. The “correct” answer to one of the first questions was that Christianity’s main goal in early America was to help expand support for democracy rather than to save souls.

Businesses need better-educated graduates to compete worldwide. We need hard measurements of knowledge, not “and all the kids are above average.”

We could use a common core. But conservatives of all stripes do not trust the political or educational establishment to put aside its liberal bias to deliver what we actually need.

No longer will conservatives accept “liberal core” for “common core.”•


Souder, a former business owner and Republican representative of the 4th Congressional District, is a political commentator living in Fort Wayne. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

  2. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

  3. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

  4. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

  5. I live downtown Indy and had to be in downtown Chicago for a meeting. In other words, I am the target demographic for this train. It leaves at 6:00-- early but doable. Then I saw it takes 5+ hours. No way. I drove. I'm sure I paid 3 to 5 times as much once you factor in gas, parking, and tolls, but it was reimbursed so not a factor for me. Any business traveler is going to take the option that gets there quickly and reliably... and leisure travelers are going to take the option that has a good schedule and promotional prices (i.e., Megabus). Indy to Chicago is the right distance (too short to fly but takes several hours to drive) that this train could be extremely successful even without subsidies, if they could figure out how to have several frequencies (at least 3x/day) and make the trip in a reasonable amount of time. For those who have never lived on the east coast-- Amtrak is the #1 choice for NY-DC and NY-Boston. They have the Acela service, it runs almost every hour, and it takes you from downtown to downtown. It beats driving and flying hands down. It is too bad that we cannot build something like this in the midwest, at least to connect the bigger cities.