Education has many aims. These aims are fixed by our educational intentions.

If our educational intention is to develop good citizens, then our educational aims must meet those intentional demands. Generally speaking, what we hope (intend) to accomplish with education is broad developing autonomy, making good citizens, fostering intelligent inquirers are all sweeping ideas. What we must aim for in order to accomplish these ends is considerably narrower. Educational aims can be particular all the way down to the individual level. For example, education that promotes democratic citizenship is going to be very different for students in rural areas versus students in the suburbs. The civil rights movement is not going to captivate children in the same way in the same places. What we mean by citizen is value laden and context specific. For some, particularly E.D. Hirsch, there are educational aims in the area of citizenship education that are not context dependent. This is what cultural literacy is about. An established set of facts with a normative quality that demands all literate citizens should be aware of their existence. Cultural literacy is about opportunity. It is about being able to engage in dialogue (Public Discourse) with others about matters of shared value. Not because these matters and facts are objectively valuable, but because this is the sort of stuff that those in power entertain. And if you want to be an active citizen, if you want to be able to commiserate with those that construct the political landscape, then you need to get on board. For Hirsch, one feature of a good citizen is to be a culturally literate citizen. Hirsch takes it that it is through the promotion of cultural literacy that we can develop a prolific citizenry. Cultural literacy is the aim. Developing good citizens is the intention. Furthermore, by bringing this culturally relevant information to all students, and particularly those of low income, we can give students a chance to flourish in a way they never would have before. We can make them socially and economically mobile. If Hirschs argument is to succeed, we must ask ourselves what is meant by good in the sense that people will have a better opportunity to be good citizens by successfully navigating Hirschs informational causeways. What should we expect from our citizens such that we can label them as good? How we answer this question is going to provide a strong indication whether or not Hirschs aim can meet our intention. In other words, if our intention is to develop good citizens, can the aim advocated by Hirsch get us there? In what follows, I am going to argue the answer to that question is no. Not necessary, may not be sufficient, limited instrumental value? Worth it? Thought experiment, content-less citizen, no knowledge of the society, exceptional character; outside of a basic knowledge of the functioning of government how much would we really care about fact possession? Defeatist? (hands the reigns to those in power?...) The quality and character of individuals cannot be separated from the information they value. You take one with the other. High society is not necessarily good (this holds on instrumental grounds as well; we want a strong democracy, whats instrumentally valuable to that end?). Conformist.

Do we want a common culture? For whom does its value lie? A limited cultural literacy does seem necessary. To what degree? Does it force a kind of double consciousness on marginalized and abused groups? Havent some Native American, Black, etc. peoples gone the route of cultural literacy? At what cost? Can a person be true to their roots, whatever those may be, and assimilate information that comes from a source that may not acknowledge the value of that persons perspective? [dr. king counterexample?] CL may be instrumentally valuable for some individuals, but is it valuable in the aggregate? How slippery is the slope to fascism? CL cannot exist independently of a strong system of character education. It needs a check When dealing with people of the right character do we really need a plethora of common launch pads? Isnt part of the fun of interacting with people learning from them? In theory, CL could move dialogue farther down the line, but will it? It could just generate a pompous mass The problem with communication is not that we have little to talk about, its the kind of people we are.