Hirsch:
E.D. Hirsch believes we need more of a national curriculum and more conservative, implicit style learning (what I mean by this is it focuses heavily on facts.) A lot of his ideology relates to the idea that we should train students to be what he calls culturally literate, meaning that students should learn terms, dates, people and formulas in all subjects that are referenced often in pop culture or newspapers. By Hirsch's logic a national curriculum followed across the board will lessen the emphasis on school choice, something Democrats and Republicans often talk about. If every school taught at the same level there wouldn't parents who are constantly trying to find the "best school" for their children. It also leaves nothing for the students to fall back on, resulting in higher student accountability, higher national standards and hopefully better schools. Hirsch defends his argument that common curriculum makes for better schools by pointing to other countries with a common curriculum like France where even immigrants score high on tests.

Sizer:
Sizer's idea of the right education system follows a more in depth approach to learning. He wants an education system where there is less emphasis on absorbing facts and information and more on true comprehension. Sizer hopes that students will have a deeper understanding of the topics. Sizer wants to see students who have a more personal and intricate understanding of topics, where they use their minds individually to try to become more insightful. Hirsch follows a how will students be able to think and interact socially and intellectually whereas Sizer follows a how will students gain more transferable skills to help them become intellectuals. A lot of Sizer's idea stems from individualism, according to him individualism for the students is incredibly important for learning and that cannot happen in wide spread standardized education system.

1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
The two theories do contradict each other but not by that much. Hirsch wants basic knowledge with an anyone can teach it mentality and a preset curriculum and Sizer wants to see students with a more personal profound understanding of books, or events. Hirsch seems more emotionless with no student to topic connection. but that doesn't mean it is completely wrong. The opposition of Hirsch's argument says that it teaches not necessary things about people that don't affect their lives. But the cultural literacy argument may affect the student more than anything else. In Sizer's speech he said "students use their minds. Schools are to provoke young people to grow up intellectually, to think hard and resourcefully and imaginatively about important things." It is important for students to learn how to learn and to use these skills to obtain a superior understanding of any topic. So with cultural literacy necessary to be social intellectuals in the current world and deep understanding being important for connection to the world the best education system has to be a mix of both.

2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?

If there is one thing SOF has done for me it has helped me to think more in depth about abstract topics. I see how the emphasis on habits of mind and looking at all angles has helped my understanding, and exhibitions have helped me become a better writer. With that in mind i find more of a connection the sizer schools. However the sizer method has failed me in a lot of ways, i agree with Hirsch that we have to be culturally literate in order to be successful functioning intellectuals and there are a lot of ways where the lack of A.P. courses or regular courses that teach these aspects have hurt me significantly. This quote from the NYT article Doing Our Homework defends the need for cultural literacy. "When Mr. Hirsch talks about ''cultural literacy,'' what he's talking about is the full set of information, both fragmentary and complete, that a person possesses about not only culture but economics, history, science and math. Without such ''intellectual capital,'' just reading a newspaper, with its references like ''supply and demand,'' ''Machiavellian tactics,'' ''black holes'' or ''The Picture of Dorian Gray,'' can be overwhelming." If school preps for you life shouldn't we learn more about terms used in life.

As I said before I think the one right education system has a mix of both Hirsch's and Sizer's ideas. a school where the students learn the terms of culture but at the same time are taught to gain a more personal message. When it comes to the idea that some classes like chemistry are not as necessary to cultural literacy as U.S. History there is a gray area. I agree that a great amount of science and math isn't used everyday but innovation and invention fuels a nations prosperity and it for that reason that chemistry although it may seem irrelevant is imperative.