I've only some elementary points to make, especially since I think the idea is

probably misguided in the first place.

First the obvious one--whose or which culture are you talking about?  Let's assume
that most contemporary societies have experienced considerable  immigration,
were  multicultural or multi-linguistic from early on (e.g., Switzerland), or were
products of colonial boundary drawing, and are being affected by other cultures
around the world.   So there is no single thing to be called a nation's culture, since
the common assumptions or backgrounds people use are varied and changing.
Rather than assuming that "cultural literacy" is a clear, well-defined concept you
might begin by making explicit what kind of background knowledge you view
as important and why, recognizing that it will be more consistent some parts
(groups, regions) of a society than others.   As an example to make the point I
recall an interesting study years ago (Growing up in Flatbush??)  that compared
what city kids and farm kids knew, treating both as knowledgable, but about
different things.  City kids had no idea where their food came from or how animals
procreated, for example.  Is that cultural literacy?  Why not?
A second point is that even academic or school culture differs between societies,
giving them unique strengths and weaknesses.  A study by Liv Gronmo of Oslo
University a few years back ("Looking for Cultural and Geographical Factors in
Patterns of Responses to TIMSS Items") found that an analysis of differences in
which items were answered correctly or incorrectly by students in different
countries showed that these patterns of right and wrong answers clustered in wider
cultural or linguistic groups.  In effect, different cultures, such as Anglo-American,
Scandinavian, East Asian, etc. taught their children somewhat similar skills,
compared to others.  This included both distinctive strengths and weaknesses.
This suggests that in defining a "culture" you need to think of comparisons.  It also
suggests that learning a distinctive culture involves both notable strengths and
weaknesses, at least when measured by international norms (tests), which are
themselves designed with political representatives and disputes over which items
favor one country or another.  So, in teaching "cultural literacy" would you want to
teach the distinctive weakness of a culture (which might also be the basis for
other strengths)?  For instance, those from one kind of background might be good
at geometric thinking but not so good at algebraic thinking.  If every strength
suggests a related weakness, as well, since one cannot invest energy and
attention in everything, which bit do you want?  
Obviously I am trying to raise some questions about the effort.  Perhaps most
importantly, one should not hide behind apparently neutral terms like "cultural
literacy" that involve value choices that should be made more openly and explicitly.