QUICK: who said "Knowledge is power?"

Those of you who are culturally literate, contributing members of society undoubtedly responded "Francis Bacon" without a moment's hesitation, for you are well schooled in the essential tidbits of information that bind our great nation together. Of course, when it comes to specific knowledge we should all share, the majority of us are illiterate, basically worthless and perfect examples of why America is plummeting into an educational abyss.

Just ask E.D. Hirsch, whose educational philosophy mirrors Bacon's conclusion. Hirsch, an English professor at the University of Virginia, has enlisted the assistance of Joseph F. Kett and James Trefil to save our nation from cultural stagnation, assembling The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, a collection of specific knowledge of, according to the weighty hardcover's bold subtitle, "What Every American Needs to Know." But there is no power in this book's knowledge.

Hirsch's explanation of the "theory behind the dictionary," like the controversial educational absolutism of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, justifies his imposition of a cultural curriculum on all Americans by staking a populist claim to universal education and patriotism. To Hirsch, it is not enough that all children learn how to read; he believes true functional literacy requires a particular back-ground of factual information, which he proceeds to outline in his 600-page, 23-chapter tome. Despite his protestations against labels of academic elitism, however, his arguments are hardly geared to the masses.

HIRSCH'S argument, a summary of the educational philosophy he espoused in his previous best-seller, Cultural Literacy, centers on the idea that common knowledge eases communication and creates a national culture. The dictionary catalogues this particular information, excluding whatever Hirsch considers too specialized, generalized, regional or transient. He claims that widespread study of this body of knowledge can reverse the American educational decline. Apparently, meager teacher's salaries, budget cuts in public schooling, drugs and escalating drop-out rates are merely secondary causes of this decline. If teachers promised to pepper their lectures with proverbs, Biblical references and other culturally relevant trivia, would students really stay in school? Is this the way to achieve "high universal literacy?"

Hirsch maintains that reading skills are limited to topics the reader has encountered, so specific information must be drilled into students' heads. He uses the example of standardized reading comprehension tests: "If a young boy knows a lot about snakes but very little about lakes, he will make a good score on a passage about snakes, but a less good score on a passage about lakes....If you know about lakes and snakes, and rakes and cakes, you will have [a high] reading ability."

Take a break, flake. Some of us grew up reading comic books, sports stories, science fiction or other literature that might not please Hirsch's dignified tastes. We read about what we liked, and that's how we learned to read. If children test poorly on a reading comprehension passage about, say, the Mongolian tree iguana, and well on one about a space taxi, it's because they are more interested in space than in life sciences, not necessarily because have read extensively on the subject. Literacy provides the freedom to discover and decide our own interests, which Hirsch constrains by telling us what to know and then shoving it down our throats. He seems to forget that when he demands that certain things be read and taught, he excludes others and discourages personal exploration.

Hirsch's approach gives facts, facts and more facts, but no vision, no interpretation, no invitation to the world of learning. Instead of reading short clips summarizing the great works of literature, shouldn't students try to read the works themselves? The superficiality of Hirsch's approach is pervasive; students are taught catch phrases to spit out at cocktail parties, but they miss out on both the pleasures of learning and the opportunity to discover what it is that truly interests them.

Hirsch claims that universal cultural literacy would help restore our economic and technological superiority. How? Our computer experts might not be versed in Dostoevsky, but to say that they don't contribute to our culture is to discount the technological advances their single-mindedness has provided us.

Hirsch defines literacy as "the ability to communicate effectively with strangers," and claims that only through educational conservatism can "grandparents communicate with grandchildren, southerners with midwesterners, whites with Blacks..." Does Hirsch really believe that the only way a Black can converse with a white is by appealing to their common knowledge of Herodotus? Communication is more than diverse individuals exchanging stored facts.

THE dictionary seems to lack a viable purpose. The weighty volume is useless as a reference tool. You need to look up a term? Use Webster's. A geographical location? Try an atlas. An expression? Bartlett's is better.

The chapters on Proverbs and Idioms are typically useless. They could be grouped into one category called Cliches, and the explanations provided are almost self-parodying. Here's a particularly helpful one:

apple a day keeps the doctor away, an: Apples keep us healthy.

The most egregiously superficial chapters are the ones on literature, but summaries of several other disciplines lack substance as well. Perhaps Hirsch could offer a suggested reading list for elementary knowledge in fields like economics, anthropology, politics and psychology, but his glossy treatment of the fields does not do them justice. Even the dictionary's highlights--Kett's history chapters and Hirsch's chapters on the Bible and mythology--would be better served by a more extensive treatment than a list of key terms.

Since this dictionary is an inefficient reference tool, I would suggest reading it straight through--especially if you enjoy reading the phone book but wish it could be a bit more repetitive. Wading through the capitalized cross-references is an exercise in prolonged frustration. Here's a typical entry: