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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.