Knowledge-Based Education vs. Process-Based Education 79 idea that one needs background knowledge in order to read, which is both true and a product of various works in cognitive science. Hirsch was made to look like a fool so often that he resorted to hir- ing a cognitive science professor at Virginia, who has written a book justifying the same nonsense with more cognitive science facts.” There is plenty of work in cognitive science that shows that back- ground knowledge helps people interpret the world around them, and thus reading, for example, is facilitated by having knowledge about the world about which you are reading. This idea, however, does not imply that ramming facts down a kid’s throat is the way for them to acquire that background knowledge. Knowledge acquisition is a natu- ral result of engaging in cognitive processes that are being employed to satisfy a truly held goal. If you are trying to find your way around a city, you will learn the streets of that city and develop what is called a cognitive map. If you try to memorize those same streets, it simply won’t work. Real knowl- edge is acquired as a natural part of an employed cognitive process in service of a goal. But Hirsch and Willingham know nothing about cog- nitive processes. They only know, and talk about, how best to acquire more facts. Politicians listen to them and there are more tests to make sure those facts have been acquired. No one remembers Algebra II or much about the Founding Fathers because that stuff is mostly facts acquired independent of any real goals that will employ those facts. Knowledge is not the real issue in education or in mental life. The real issue is developing facility with doing various cognitive processes. Knowledge comes along for free with practice of these processes in specific domains. There is no evidence whatsoever that accumulation of facts and background knowledge are the same thing. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Facts learned o