Robinson, S. N. (2004). History of Immigrant Female Students in Chicago Public Schools, 1900-1950. Reviewed by Karen Monkman, DePaul University, and Angelica Rivera, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Robinson, S. N. (2004). History of Immigrant Female Students in Chicago Public Schools, 1900-1950. N.Y: Peter Lang. Pp. ix + 131 $24.95   ISBN 0-8204-6720-0 Reviewed by Karen Monkman, DePaul University, and Angelica Rivera, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign January 2, 2006 Introduction Stephanie Nicole Robinson’s monograph is an important contribution to scholarship dealing with the history of education, gender and education, and immigration and education. Robinson expands the historical narrative of European-American women in mid-twentieth century Chicago through her analysis of oral history archives which privilege the voices and experiences of Jewish, Italian, Polish and Irish women. Robinson tells stories of schooling and cultural adaptation from 1900 to 1950, and traces some cultural beliefs regarding education to their countries of origin. Chapter One includes a broad overview of existing historical scholarship related to Irish, Polish, Italian, and Jewish immigration. From this existing literature, the author extracts educational data from those sending countries/regions (e.g., literacy rates, drop-out patterns), and also discusses justifications for educating girls (or not) in particular ways (e.g., family beliefs about traditional gender roles or the lack of need for educating girls). The author also states four points she intends to develop through the presentation and analysis of her data: (1) Americanization experiences were often different for women and men, (2) schools did not adequately address the cultural beliefs and practices of female students, (3) Americanization/assimilation programs were resisted by parents who sought to convey their own cultural systems to their children, and (4) parental beliefs and attitudes are based on gender and rooted in native cultures (p. 13). Following the introductory chapter, the next three chapters present historical data organized around issues of Americanization experiences, school policies and practices related to Americanization, and beliefs and attitudes toward the education of girls. The second chapter includes a discussion of issues related to Americanization and gender, including women’s enrollment in night classes, factory classes, and mothering classes; experiences of learning English; entering the workforce; and making use of newly available social options such as divorce. The author talks about how immigration laws required women to depend on male sponsors, and how social security laws benefited male workers more than female workers when they retired. These kinds of conditions influenced how women were encouraged to or discouraged from assimilating, and how their assimilation patterns differed from those of men. Chapter Three focuses on Americanization activities—citizenship and character education—in Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Politicians and various interest groups, as they fought for power over school policy, promoted Americanization through education in this period when the numbers of immigrant students and students who spoke languages other than English were increasing rapidly, and when many teachers were Protestants of British descent. This chapter is organized around three objectives related to civic training: (1) learning about American culture, (2) learning “socially desirable habits” (learning how to act American), and (3) learning how to participate in group life (how to become integrated into American society). Tensions arose in some settings due to the strong ethnic (cultural) and religious orientation of many immigrants that made Americanization efforts problematic; these efforts were experienced as a rejection of who they were and where they came from. At the same time, however, there was (seemingly willing) participation in Americanization activities, and evidence that change did occur generationally but with societal barriers to acceptance. For example, the author concludes the chapter by stating that, while Americanized students were “different” from their extended (non-immigrated) families and parents, they were not accepted as Americans by other populations due to xenophobic curricula and beliefs; “they were outsiders in two cultures…” (p. 53). While cultural change (Americanization) did occur, this book’s focus on 1900-1950 limits discussion to only the first two generations, so we do not have a longer-term perspective of how, for example, Irish immigrants became Irish-Americans, and then became un-hyphenated Americans (Lieberson, 1991.n Chapter Four, entitled “Old World Influences on Attitudes toward Schooling in the New World,” presents data on the four immigrant groups related to (a) attitudes and schooling experiences prior to immigration, and (b) attitudes and schooling experiences in the U.S., primarily in relation to women’s roles and educational attainment. The preference for boys’ education over girls’ was a common thread for all of these groups in their countries of origin as well as in America upon their arrival (p. 55). Robinson also looks at some of the historical and political factors that shaped women’s education in their countries of origin. Jewish women, for example, were not allowed to advance in educational pursuits prior to migrating especially if they came from the working class. In Italy, educational opportunities were more available to and sought out by Northern Italians, who had power in Italian society. After migration, Southern Italians had a harder time “assimilating” because of their darker skin color and lower social class status. This perpetuated negative stereotypes about Italians in the U.S. which were sometimes reinforced by the educational system and its leaders. The author describes how, in the U.S. the roles of immigrant women were challenged by an economy where women’s wages were needed in order to sustain the household. For this reason, many women had to enter the workforce, thus upsetting traditional expectations that women not work outside the home. Compulsory education laws also challenged traditional notions of women’s place in the home by keeping girls in school longer. The final chapter states that “contrary to past historical scholarship, … immigrant parents were not against education” (p. 92), and that parental beliefs and attitudes were “gender based and culturally rooted in their native homelands” (p. 93). The author argues that immigrant women were able to continue their roles as their children’s first teachers, passing down cultural traditions and practices and thereby promoting cultural continuity. She further distinguishes her study from others by saying that “many of the studies done on immigrant attitudes toward education do not take into consideration the lack of opportunities to receive formal education due to politics, social norms, and financial circumstances…” (p. 93). Robinson suggests that historians should focus more “on the role of women within their families and society” (p. 93) and should delve more deeply into schooling experiences and attitudes toward education of female immigrant students. She also lists other locations from which data could be collected (e.g., Hull House, Catholic school records, ethnic museums), and argues that cultural deficit models should not be the basis of educational policies and that policy makers should strengthen their understanding of the role of gender in educational dynamics. Her list of recommendations also includes a more gendered approach to understanding enculturation and acculturation processes and school experiences. While her conclusions and recommendations are pertinent, further discussion of and support for each would have been welcomed. The fairly extensive endnotes (17 pages) and references (15 pages) are useful for readers to both better understand the source of some of her statements and to pursue particular issues further, if so inclined. This book raises a variety of issues, relevant in the first half of the 20th century, and still relevant now. Following an overview of immigration in today’s Chicago, we will discuss methodological and theoretical issues in Robinson’s work and in the broader intersections of history of immigration, gender and education.. Recent Trends in Chicago’s Immigration Immigration to Chicago continues to shape the social fabric, although the sending countries have changed to some degree. Eastern European immigration has continued and many more countries of the former USSR have significant populations in Chicago, although numbers decreased between 1960 and 1980 before increasing again. The Polish-born population in Chicago was about 90,000 in 1960, decreasing thereafter, and then increasing to 137,670 in 2000. Irish and Italian immigration slowed between 1960 and 2000 from 25,795 and 61,930 respectively in 1960, to 10,562 and 25,934 in 2000. Immigration from Mexico has out-paced all other regions, representing over 40% of the foreign-born population in the Chicago area, totaling 582,028 in 2000 (Paral & Norkewicz, 2003). Asian and African populations also increased during the second half of the 20th century, to 320,239 and 23,087 in 2000 respectively. The rise in Latin American immigration to the United States has been spurred by the promise of employment and educational opportunity, in part in relation to political agreements (e.g., NAFTA), and prompted by civil war and poverty (as in the cases of Salvadorans and Guatemalans, for example). With the gendered nature of immigration (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994), we can also expect a gendered nature in which families interact with schools and engage in educational processes. The ways that American teachers engage in gendered educational processes (cf., Stone, 1994) comprise another aspect that could be analyzed in relation to the gender dynamics involving immigrant families and students. Like the groups studied by Robinson, Mexican women also enter the workforce in the U.S. in order to contribute to their family income, experience limited opportunity to further their schooling, and encounter Americanization programs at school. Ruiz (1998), for example, whose work focuses on Mexican immigrant women from the 1920s to the 1950s, finds that Mexican women in the southwestern U.S. were also targeted for assimilation programs since they were seen as the transmitters of culture and child rearing. During this point in time Americanization programs were promoted by the Methodist Church and other Christian organizations in order to promote the conversion of Mexican Catholics. It was a different approach to assimilation as religious clergy and staff learned Spanish in order to develop trust and promote conversion. However, Ruiz points out that Mexicans were not passive subjects who simply accepted a new culture; instead they participated in what she has coined “cultural coalescence” (p. 50), meaning that Mexican immigrants choose what they want to borrow, retain what they want to keep, and, at the same time, create new cultural forms. Thus, culture is fluid and not fixed. It varies depending on one’s generation, gender, social class position and/or region. Robinson’s study contributes to scholarship that reveals particular aspects of this diversity. One difference between the populations discussed by Robinson and more recent immigrant groups from Mexico and Central America relates to the proximity of the U.S. to the sending countries and the political relations between the countries. Unlike the European immigrants in Robinson’s study, deportation of Mexicans to Mexico has been quite prevalent during the mid-twentieth century and continues to this day. Mexican men and women have been defined as “laborers” but not as “citizens,” thus making “Americanization” efforts more problematic. The U.S. educational system attempts to “Americanize” students by assimilating them and avoiding what conservatives such as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. (1991) have coined “The Disuniting of America.” In other words, Mexican students should participate in “subtractive schooling” (Valenzuela, 1999) not necessarily for the purpose of citizenship, but instead to qualm fears of an increasing Mexican population in the United States. This also raises important contemporary questions about issues like assimilation for immigrants from areas where travel is relatively easy. Additive cultural change (Valenzuela, 1999) and transnational identity (Schiller, Basch & Blanc-Szanton, 1992; Basch, Schiller & Szanton Blanc, 1994) can become priorities over subtractive assimilationist agendas that seek an Anglo-conformity (Gordon, 1964, citing Cole & Cole, 1954) verson of Americanization. Cultural change processes are much more complex than simplistic linear notions of assimilation, particularly for some groups who seek to retain some of their ethnic and cultural heritage, and for those faced with discrimination which limits their ability to assimilate (Gordon, 1964). Robinson reveals the existence f this tension in her study. We need to understand the depth and nuances of this social dynamic more fully, however. Interdisciplinarity and Theoretical Conceptualizations In order to gain an in-depth and broad understanding of social phenomena such as immigration, gender and education, it is important to discuss historical data in relation to other types of data, other disciplines and particular theoretical frames. Immigration has been studied by sociologists, economists, policy analysts and anthropologists for many years, yet Robinson mentions primarily the contributions of historians. (This was her intention and, as such, should not be considered a weakness.) In the social sciences a variety of issues have been debated for decades; among them are assimilation, adaptation, acculturation, identity, transnationalism, and factors that influence migration. Embedded in Robinson’s study are various assumptions about assimilation as a goal or outcome of immigration. Assimilation is a contested issue in sociology and anthropology, as it is argued by some that many immigrants are not interested in, and even reject, an assimilationist agenda. This issue is reflected in Robinson’s data, which illustrates that many women and families strive to maintain their cultural heritage while also seeking to gain the abilities to become more integrated in American society. This tension—cultural continuity vs. cultural change—is all but ignored in many of the early studies of immigration, in which researchers assume that those who immigrate wish to assimilate, and thus abandon their cultural histories. Robinson’s focus on gender enables the reader to gain a glimpse of this struggle to balance the new with the old, as it is often in gender relations where this struggle plays itself out. Readers should be reminded that notions such as assimilation, Americanization, cultural change, and the like, are not simple or benign concepts, but are contested by immigrants in the processes of constructing their lives and by scholars in their academic analyses. Some of the lack of attention to the ways that these concepts are contested in this monograph is undoubtedly due to the limits of the data in these archives. The act of immigration, for example, seemed to be motivated, in large part, by unquestioned assumptions of economic push and pull factors in Robinson’s book. This is rarely the whole story, however. (See Massey et al.’s Return to Aztlan, or Hondagneu-Sotelo’s Gendered Transitions, for example, for more nuanced discussions of these social processes.) The converse is, of course, that much social science research lacks the historical depth of studies such as Robinson’s. Historiography: Researching Gender, Immigration & Education Robinson looked at both primary and secondary sources in order to gain an understanding of the experiences of Jewish, Italian, Polish and Irish immigrant women. Primary sources were used to get a better understanding of the Polish and Italian immigrant experience. The Immigrant Protective League papers at the UIC Special Collections are some key archives that helped to reveal their lived experiences. However, in the case of the Immigrant Protective League papers it was not clear whether archives on all four ethnic groups were available. Secondary sources were used to fill in the gaps for the Irish and Jewish experience. Reports and Proceedings of the Board of Education from the archives were also used to complement the secondary sources. Robinson also examined oral history archives entitled, “Chicago Polonia” located at the Chicago Historical Society, and looked at the “Italian Oral History Project” located at the UIC Special Collections. These archives provide key insights that have not been explored by many other scholars. Robinson provides a brief review of the literature in her introductory chapter regarding European immigrant education in order to explain how her work fills the gap. By using these archives the author privileges the voices of women who have been traditionally excluded in previous literature. Conclusion This monograph can inform scholars who are interested in issues related to immigration, gender studies, history of education, comparative education, and educational policy studies. A strength of the book is the comparative approach that was taken regarding understanding the immigrant experiences of Jewish, Polish, Italian and Irish immigrant women, with information about their lives pre- and post-migration. A weakness is that recent oral interviews were not conducted to corroborate the experiences that are salient in the oral history archives. Many people who migrated in the first half of the 20th century are still alive and many undoubtedly live in Chicago. In addition, the book could have been strengthened by a more direct dialog with existing scholarship beyond historical studies of immigration. Overall, however, Robinson’s contributions are useful in enabling us to better see the gendered dynamics in the interface of schooling and immigrant communities. She should be commended. References Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc. 1994. Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach. Garcia, Mario T. 1981. Desert Immigrants: The Mexicans of El Paso, 1880-1920. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 1994. Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lieberson, Stanley. 1991. A New Ethnic Group in the United States. Article 23 in Normal R. Yetman (ed.), Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life. 5th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp 444-56. Massey, Douglas, Rafael Alarcón, Jorge Durand and Humberto González. 1986. Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press. Paral, Rob, and Michael Norkewicz. 2003. The Metro Chicago Immigration Fact Book. Chicago: Roosevelt University Institute for Metropolitan Affairs. Ruiz, Vicki L. 1998. “From Out of the Shadows: Mexican Women in Twentieth Century America.” New York: Oxford University Press. Schiller, Nina Glick, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton (eds.). 1992. Towards a Transnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. Vol. 645, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. 1991. The Disuniting of America. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Stone, Lynda (ed.). 1994. The Education Feminism Reader. New York: Routledge. Valenzuela, Angela. 1999. Subtractive Schooling: US–Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. Albany: State University of New York Press. About the Reviewers Karen Monkman is an Associate Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Research at DePaul University, with specializations in sociology and anthropology of education, comparative education, and gender. Her interests relating to education include migration, immigration, and transnationalism; immigration and cultural dynamics; and globalization. Angelica Rivera is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the field of History of Education. Her dissertation topic deals with documenting the educational experiences of Mexican women in 1950s Chicago. Her interests relating to education include immigration, history of education, gender studies, and educational policy. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Slaughter, Sheila and Rhoades, Gary. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Reviewed by Rebecca Barber, Arizona State University

Slaughter, Sheila and Rhoades, Gary. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Pp. xii +370 $39.95   ISBN 0-8018-7949-3 Reviewed by Rebecca Barber Arizona State University January 3, 2006 Commercialism in higher education is not a new topic; it has been covered by a number of authors focusing on research (Etzkowitz, Webster & Healey (1998)), interaction with industry (Soley (1995)), marketing (Kirp (2003)), and sports-related commercial ventures (Sperber (2000)). This book, however, takes a different and more sophisticated approach. Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie wrote the first book on this topic in 1997: Academic Capitalism: Policies, Politics and the Entrepreneurial University. At that time they focused on research universities in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia, looking primarily at technology transfer activities. The definition of academic capitalism remains the same: “…the pursuit of market and market-like activities to generate external revenues” (p. 11). But this definition is too simplistic a summary for Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Slaughter and Rhoades focus heavily on the blurred lines between markets, states and higher education, as well as the entities and actors who span and blur those boundaries. In this book Slaughter has a new writing partner and puts forth a formalized theory of academic capitalism. The focus of Slaughter and Rhoades’ research is strictly public and not-for-profit institutions in the U.S., but the topics are more thoroughly investigated and the conclusions more nuanced than in the first, more broadly focused volume. While considerable attention (Chapters 3 and 4) is paid to patent issues and technology transfer, chapters 5 and 6 are devoted to exploring the issues around copyright and its impact on instruction, educational materials, and courseware. Chapter 7 is devoted to departmental market activities such as on-line programs, professional Masters degrees and independent development officers. Another (Chapter 8) is devoted to activity at the level of Administrators and Trustees, with focus on the networks that link these managers to the new economy. Finally, two chapters are devoted to students as both the target market and what is being marketed. The first of these chapters, Chapter 10, deals with the status of students as a captive market once they enroll and the way institutions take advantage of the situation to make money through deals with outside companies. The second, Chapter 11, discusses the activities involved in recruiting students and the ways in which marketing is directed at current and potential students. Immediately following the introduction is a chapter covering the policies and politics that enable the move to academic capitalism. Slaughter and Rhoades divide policy into two principal groups, focusing first on student financial aid and then on research, patent and intellectual property policies. These two sets of policies show some interaction in the growth of academic capitalism, and familiarity with the political and policy environment provides a good foundation for the more specific subjects enumerated above. While Slaughter and Rhoades do not spend an extensive amount of time discussing or defining the “New Economy,” they do touch on the characteristics most relevant to colleges and universities. First among these characteristics is the global scope of the new economy. Globalization increases complexity in all types of transactions and produces a greater reliance on technology to support those transactions. While universities have long formed global learning communities and made contact with colleagues in far away lands, this new globalization brings with it increased choice for students, increased mobility in the global labor force and increased technologically enabled delivery of instruction than had previously been possible. They also see the growth of what they refer to as “non-Fordist manufacturing” as an issue. In short, this is the move away from mass production, out of an industrial economy and into a knowledge-based economy. This change appears in areas such as the management of faculty, as both the growth of part-time, adjunct or non-tenure track faculty and the unbundling of professorial work in areas such as on-line or distance education. However the change also impacts the next key characteristic, the need for educated workers and technology savvy consumers. The changing nature of the majority of work has caused a change in the nature of the undergraduate curricula. Business has become the most popular field while science, engineering, medicine, and law have all seen substantial growth in order “to create and protect knowledge-based products, processes and services” (p. 19). Further, students are exposed to blatant consumerism and new technology throughout their college experience, such as mini-malls in student unions and the use of colleges as technology test beds. The final key new economy concept is that of knowledge as a raw material. “Corporations in the new economy treat advanced knowledge as a raw material that can be claimed through legal devices, owned, and marketed as a product or service” (p. 17). The implications of this change are staggering, since it is the key change that has moved us from what the authors previously saw as a “public good” paradigm to one of “academic capitalism”. As the authors define it, “the public good knowledge regime was characterized by valuing knowledge as a public good to which the citizenry has claims” (p. 28). This is directly in conflict with the view of knowledge as something that can be owned. Slaughter and Rhoades point out that the change values privatization and profit making, and gives the institution, faculty inventor, and potentially corporations claim on this newly created knowledge over and above any claim made by the public. The authors do not see one regime as having replaced the other but do see an overlap and uncomfortable intersection of the two. That intersection has led to a substantive change in the way institutions are run and the reasons behind many of the decisions they make. One feature of the new economy is increased complexity, scale, and the need for specialization, all of which is grounded in the global scope of the new economy and move away from a mass-production model. While the historic role of faculty was comprehensive (anything related to the instruction and academic progress of a student was under their purview), the tools used were simpler and easily learned. As we evolve from chalkboards through overhead projectors and Powerpoint to HTML and Flash, the need for professionals to assist faculty greatly increases. The same applies to patent and copyright lawyers, who work in a constantly evolving field that requires the expertise of a professional to navigate. Slaughter and Rhoades attempt to make the case that the very need for these types of professionals is a concern. It is only through the transition of knowledge from being public to it being private that these roles even become necessary. The authors acknowledge that this is not a change that can be easily undone, and this concept of privatized knowledge is as much a part of the new economy as the technology that symbolizes it. The authors use a standard set of lenses to view each subject and present their findings in a structure that uses each lens in turn. They begin with a look at the “New Circuits of Knowledge” that have been created during the move to the new economy. The implication here is that we have moved away from teaching being the work of faculty and peer review being an activity for academics to one where the administration and industry play a larger role. The influence of different rating systems (such as U.S. News and World Report) on how schools choose to allocate their resources in order to compete is another example. With these connections established, the authors move on to examine the internal changes caused or encouraged by the new economy requirements as well as the organizations that mediate between universities and colleges and industry. Finally the authors look at the enhanced managerial capabilities emerging to deal with these new economy functions. One concept that the authors return to repeatedly is the intermediation of non-faculty professionals in the education process. The authors cast the use of these managerial staff in a negative light, implying for example that faculty should be making the decisions about the purchase of technology for use in instruction (p. 318). This presumes, however, both the interest and the technical knowledge to make good decisions of this type. Given the complexity of the technology involved, it is unlikely that most faculty have either the technical knowledge or the desire to acquire the knowledge needed to make these decisions. The author’s implication is that by giving up control of these decisions, faculty give up control of the options and ultimately the pedagogy of classes that use the tool. Yet it seems clear that the best use of faculty time is in creating content and learning to take advantage of the capabilities of the available tools rather than burying themselves in the technical minutia of choosing the tool itself. They conclude by illuminating their concerns with the new market-oriented activities of universities. The blurring of boundaries between the public and private sectors is seen as an issue due to the heavy subsidization that occurs for university research and the fact that universities are not particularly effective or efficient entrepreneurs. There are also concerns about the extent of patent and copyright use, as the development of knowledge becomes more “propertized” (owned) and less available for enhancement of the public knowledge base. They would at least like to see more thought to the public good being put into the type of research projects chosen; there is no need for universities to research cosmetic products when pharmaceutical companies will do that themselves. However, there is a great need to research AIDs vaccines and other types of less profitable items that would have a great deal of social benefit. The authors also see issues arising related to educational equity and access as schools pursue students who can pay regardless of whether they were inadequately served before. Examples of this include new professional programs and on-line programs that are targeted at working adults, theoretically taking resources from underserved populations. “The heavy attendance of low-income and minority students at community colleges is in part a reflection of the marketing strategies of elite colleges and universities” (p. 335). However it is difficult to make a strong case that resources are being taken away when there are far more low-income and minority students in higher education than at any time in the past. Finally, they see less interaction with the community as institutions expand their focus to the global market. Slaughter and Rhoades touch on the replacement of full-time faculty with part-time and contingent faculty, turning over the bulk of the teaching to those who have fewer vested interests and are not as stably involved with the institution. These faculty also are given fewer resources and are less available to students. In addition, the extensive growth of middle management, specifically “managerial non-faculty professionals who manage infrastructure, economic development, endowment, and entrepreneurial activities” (p. 332), is less focused on what they see as the core mission of the university, teaching and instruction. The authors see a core shift in why students come to college and the mission of the institution. “The idea of a college or university as a space for public discussion, debate, commentary, and critique is pushed to the background. Instead, colleges and universities focus increasingly on preparing students for new economy employment” (p. 333). Again, the question comes to mind as to whether these concepts cannot be accomplished concurrently. There is nothing inherent in a program directed toward gainful employment that silences debate or critique; rather the opposite as more companies list communication skills and problem-solving skills as critical for employees. The authors place much of the blame for the presented problems on a set of changing societal values. They write about a state that “focuses not on social welfare for the citizenry as a whole but on enabling individuals as economic actors. To that end … states move resources from social welfare to production functions” (p. 20). This is one of the classic objections to neoliberal economics and as such is an ideology as much as an argument. The counter is that by moving resources to production we make the resources available in the future to improve social welfare. Which ideology is more convincing is left to the reader. While obviously concerned about these issues, the authors are also realistic. They see a change from what, at the time of the Slaughter and Leslie book, was referred to as the profit motive “encroaching” on institutions to it having become embedded. They understand that academic capitalism is unlikely to go away and does have some potential benefits if implemented with more care. A change in focus from pure monetary profit to one of social profit and advancement could go a long way toward addressing many of their concerns, as could bringing the global economic focus back to a local one through programs that address local issues (e.g., combining ESL and computer technology classes, as they suggest). The authors do miss some of the efforts to educate faculty about these issues and their rights that organizations such as the Association of American Universities and the Associations of Research Libraries have started. They portray faculty as often oblivious to the changes when in many cases they are driving them. They also miss the point that it is only through providing faculty the opportunity to be entrepreneurs and get some personal gain from their research that the same faculty have stayed within the academy rather than left for private industry. This could even be to society’s benefit since the faculty are then available to train new generations of researchers. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy is a very thorough, nuanced coverage of the issues but not at all accessible to the average reader. Between the off-putting and confusing vocabulary (ranging from neologisms such as “marketizing,” “propertized,” and the like) to esoteric terms (such as “academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime” and “neoliberal state”) and the dry tone (broken up with the occasional economics pun just to see if the reader is still paying attention) this would be a slow and difficult read for a nonacademic. Given the importance to the academy of the issues it presents, one hopes eventually to see a more treatment of these issues that can appeal to a wider audience. References Castells, M. (1996 - 2000). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Volumes 1 - 3. Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers. Delany, J. E. (1997). "Commercialism in Intercollegiate Athletics." Educational Record, 78(1): 39-44. Dill, D. D. (1997). "Higher Education Markets and Public Policy." Higher Education Policy 10(3-4): 167-185. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, P. Healy (Eds.). (1998). Capitalizingknowledge: New interactions of industry and academe. Albany, NY, SUNY Press. Kirp, D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Boston, MA, Harvard University Press Slaughter, S. and Leslie. L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and Circus:How Big-time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education. New York, NY, Henry Holt & Company. Soley, L. (1995). Leasing the ivory tower: The corporate takeover of academia. Boston, MA, South End Press. About the Reviewer Rebecca Barber is a PhD student in the Education Leadership and Policy Studies program at Arizona State University. Her research interests include the economics of higher education, the transition from secondary to post-secondary education, and the businesses that surround and profit from education at all levels. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Freire, Paulo. (2004). Pedagogy of Indignation. Reviewed by Ramin Farahmandpur, Portland State University

Freire, Paulo. (2004). Pedagogy of Indignation. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. pp. 129 $18.95   ISBN 1594510512 Reviewed by Ramin Farahmandpur Portland State University January 11, 2006 Throughout his life and in his work as an organic intellectual and a philosopher, Paulo Freire fought fiercely against social oppression and injustices. Since the publication of the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire’s work has profoundly influenced and shaped the way in which teachers and educators frame political and ideological questions concerning teaching and learning in their classrooms. There is no question that the ethical and moral dimensions of Freirean pedagogy has inspired and motivated a new generation of educators and activists to courageously defend democratic principles, values and practices in their classrooms and schools against the neoliberal onslaught in an age marked by terror, fear and permanent war. Freire’s final book, Pedagogy of Indignation, is composed of a series of pedagogical letters in which he explores the importance of education in the struggle to build a democratic society. The book, primarily intended for students, parents and educators, begins with a discussion on the inevitability of change. Freire believes that change and mobility are defining characteristics and traits of culture and history. He writes that in the absence of change there is no culture or history. Freire argues that change can be understood only in relationship to risk. Without risks, change is impossible. Thus, for Freire, making history and culture involves taking risks. However, Freire warns against taking spontaneous risks. Instead, he encourages educators to take risks; risks informed and guided by a study of history, politics and culture. Freire sees human beings as a “presence in the world.” He writes that taking risks is an essential characteristic of our “existing being.” He believes that education, both as a political and ideological activity, also involves change and risk. Our presence in the world is not a neutral presence. As political and ideological beings, we are compelled to take a stance toward the world. As Freire notes: “Nobody can be in the world, with the world, and with others in a neutral manner”(p. 60). Thus, for Freire “being” is a being in the world. Freire sees history impregnated with possibility and hope. However, to make that possibility tangible, he believes that we must actively engage and intervene in the world. What does ‘being in the world’ entail? Freire suggests that our presence in the world is not to adapt to it, but to transform it. Freire emphasizes that adapting to the world is only process—a temporary phase—toward intervening and transforming the world. Thus, adaptation is a “moment in the process of intervention”(p. 34). In addition, Freire believes that we live in an ethical world. Our ideological and political orientation forces us to make moral and ethical decisions. Our actions have a universal dimension. ‘Being in the world’ means recognizing our responsibilities and our commitments towards others human beings in the world. For Freire, human beings are both subjects and objects of history. In other words, he believes that although the forces of history shape our past and present, we can change the course of history, and in the process make history. As Freire puts it, “the future does not make us, we make ourselves in the struggle to make it”(p. 34). Freire asserts that we can break away from the chains of history passed down to us from previous generations and make our own history. In short, Freire acknowledges that human beings are conditioned by history, but he refuse to accept that they are determined by it because for Freire history is possibility. Freire maintains that a critical reading of the world involves denouncing the existing oppression and injustices in the world. At the same time, it involves announcing the possibility of a more humane and just world. Thus, Freire sees the pedagogical act of reading the world as a dialectical process involving denouncing the existing world and announcing the possibility of a new world. For Freire, reading the world is both a pedagogical-political and a political-pedagogical undertaking. Denouncing the world is an act that involves criticizing, protesting and struggling against domination and domestication. On the other hand, the act of announcing a new world entails hope, possibility and envisioning a new democratic society. Elsewhere, Freire makes an important distinction between the role of education for helping students develop critical thinking skills and education for training and preparation of students for the workforce. He cautions us against reducing education to a set of techniques or skills. Freire believes that education is a tool that can be employed to “make and remake” ourselves. Education, as Freire conceives it, involves knowing that you know, and knowing that you don’t know. Education involves developing a “critical curiosity” and a radical reorientation toward the world. The final chapter of Freire’s book ends on a high note. Freire offers a social and political reinterpretation of prophecy. He writes that “prophetic thought” involves examining, analyzing and reflecting upon our social, cultural, political and historical circumstances. It requires us to learn to question the world by cultivating an “epistemological curiosity.” Freire explains that prophets are those who muster the courage to imagine, dream and struggle toward building the foundations of a new democratic society. Prophets are those who are willing to be a “presence” in the world, and are prepared to critically engage in reading the word and the world. It is worth quoting Freire at length: Thinking of tomorrow is thus engaging in prophecy, except that the prophet in this case is not an old man with a long and gray beard, with lively open eyes and stave in hand, hardly concerned about his attire, preaching incensed words. On the contrary, the prophets here are those who are founded in what they see, hear, apprehend, in what they understand, who are rooted in their epistemological curiosity exercise alert to signs they seek to comprehend, supported in their reading of the world and of words new and old, which is the base of how and how much expose themselves, thus becoming more and more a presence in the world at a par with their time. (p. 104) Some educators may be disappointed to find that Freire’s book does not offer a blueprint or a ‘how to’ manual for social change. That was never Freire’s intention. Freirean pedagogy is not a discreet set of prescribed methods, doctrines or practices that provides teachers quick and easy solutions to problems and challenges they may face in their classrooms. Freire’s main goal was to help educators recognize and link the moral, ethical and political dimensions of education to their daily teaching and learning practices in their classrooms. Freirean pedagogy is a praxis-oriented pedagogy in which there is a dialectical relationship between theory and practice, and action and reflection. Freirean pedagogy provides us with a toolbox (a set of analytical skills, theoretical vocabulary, and practices) that enables us to decode, deconstruct and name the world. And by naming the world, we can take action to intervene and transform the world. About the Reviewer Ramin Farahmandpur is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Policy, Foundations and Administrative Studies at Portland State University. His interests include critical pedagogy and multicultural education. He is the co-author of Teaching against Global Capitalism and the New Imperialism: A Critical Pedagogy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, (2005). Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Henderson, James G. and Kesson, Kathleen R. (2004). Curriculum Wisdom: Educational Decisions in Democratic Societies. Reviewed by Laurel K. Chehayl, Kent State University

Henderson, James G. and Kesson, Kathleen R. (2004). Curriculum Wisdom: Educational Decisions in Democratic Societies. Upper Saddle River, NJ and Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall. pp. iii + 228 $32.67 (paperback)   ISBN 0-13-111819-6 Reviewed by Laurel K. Chehayl Kent State University January 14, 2006 In the current educational environment in the United States, high stakes testing and accountability are paramount in prevailing legislation. It is almost common knowledge among U.S. educators and citizens alike that No Child Left Behind has in place a variety of tools to measure and evaluate students, teachers and schools across the country. Many politicians and educational legislators tout the virtues of these laws and are standing devoutly behind them. Perhaps consequently, much of the general citizenry also looks favorably upon No Child Left Behind and its concerted effort to standardize education. On the other hand, numerous educators across the country, many firmly dedicated to and immersed in student-centered reflective practice and democratic curriculum studies, do not. Inherent flaws in the institutionalized standardized curriculum supported by the legislation may concern them. James Henderson and Kathleen Kesson are two such educators. This review will examine their book, entitled Curriculum Wisdom Educational Decisions in Democratic Societies, in which Henderson and Kesson extrapolate their grounded observations and beliefs about current U.S. curricular decision-making and present a viable alternative to the reader for consideration. I will begin with an overview of the text and a summary of their seven modes of inquiry designed to scaffold curriculum inquiry. I will then examine the strengths and weaknesses of the book, and finally its potential uses for those engaged in contemporary curriculum decision-making. In Curriculum Wisdom, James Henderson and Kathleen Kesson invite the reader on a journey of considerate reflection. They purport that the inherent purpose of curriculum decision making is to create for teachers and students a learning environment that embodies what the authors identify as the “democratic good life” (p. 12). After briefly examining the current condition of U.S. curriculum and curriculum-decision making, they offer a constructive alternate curriculum decision-making framework from what they identify as a “wisdom” orientation. They ground their work and the wisdom orientation in three foundational assumptions. Prefacing the book, the authors write Curriculum workers who adopt a wisdom orientation are…challenging themselves To consider the “good conduct” and “enduring values” implications and consequences of their decision; To think about the relationship between educational means and ends; and To engage in sophisticated practical reasoning (Henderson and Kesson, 22004, p. ix). The authors first take a cursory yet critical look at the condition of predominantly institutionalized U.S. curriculum decision-making and pose for the reader cogent concerns about the challenges facing the democratic ideals of U.S. society. They concisely suggest to the reader that institutionalized curriculum decision making does not nurture or support democratic living in U.S. public schools. They also offer the reader a succinct definition of curriculum wisdom. “The concept curriculum wisdom”, Henderson and Kesson write, “…(is) a concise way to convey the subtle and complex challenges of approaching curriculum work as envisioning and enacting a good educational journey” (p. 4, emphasis in original). They lay emphasis on the charge for those who seek to engage in curriculum wisdom oriented decision making to remain focused on “envisioning” a democratic good life and “enacting” those significant visions. Too often, they observe, educators get lost in our often rigid and doctrinaire educational goals and objectives, losing sight of the significant and humane purpose of their work. Henderson and Kesson explain, “[e]nvisioning and enacting are incomplete without each other. When in play, they constitute ‘the Tao of curriculum wisdom’” (p. 47). The authors do not belabor the perceived weakness of institutionalized curriculum, but instead focus the attentions of the reader on the wisdom orientation they posit. Further expanding on the definition of curriculum wisdom, Henderson and Kesson offer for their readers the “5C’s of wise curriculum judgments: collaboration, character, challenge, and calling” (p. 12). It is through these 5C’s, they posit, that curriculum decision makers can remain focused on securing the democratic good life for themselves and their students. They encourage curriculum decision-makers to rise to the considerable challenge of maintaining reflective self-awareness while thoughtfully and compassionately working together with diverse others. Through their explanation of the 5Cs, the authors provide for the reader a more clearly articulated examination of the multifaceted curriculum wisdom approach from an experiential point of view. They expand upon the idea of curriculum wisdom as a way of life, or more personal approach to curriculum decision-making for the democratic good. The authors readily acknowledge that approaching curriculum from the wisdom perspective for the purpose of achieving democratic education is neither easily nor immediately mastered. Instead it is a considerable challenge. They write, “[b]ecause democracy is an interpretive term – because it has many meanings that are not anchored in any specific moral doctrine – the decision-making process must necessarily be multifaceted. Problem solvers must be playfully light on their feet,” (p. 12). Furthering their position, they cite for the reader several foundational curriculum ideas that are in keeping with this multifaceted playfulness. For example, they touch upon Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery and Taubman’s (1995) “complicated conversation” and Schwab’s (1978) “eclectic artistry”, to firmly under gird the notion that curriculum decision-making for the democratic good is an exercise in patience and deliberation. Chapter three is the logistical heart of approaching curriculum decision making from the wisdom orientation. Embedded in a holographic map, Henderson and Kesson introduce what they identify as the 7 modes of inquiry foundational to curriculum decision making from a wisdom orientation. The map pictured in the book, intended to convey the non-linear, recursive and hermeneutic wisdom approach to considering curriculum, unfortunately does not achieve its end. I believe the authors would have better served the reader had they simply omitted the figure of the map and instead allowed readers to imagine the image for ourselves. That aside, the text gives the reader a firm and clear grasp on the 7 modes of inquiry. In sum, the 7 modes include: Techné: the concrete skills or abilities involved in creation; Poesis: the meaningful and soulful characteristics of creation; Praxis: the reflective interplay between knowledge and action; Dialogos: the construction of understanding through various perspectives; Phronesis: deliberative, moral and considerate decision making; Polis: a fluid interplay between political and ethical issues; and Theoria: rooted in the concept of “theory; envisioning possibilities and inquiring for the democratic good. While this truncated explanation of the 7 modes of inquiry does not fully express their complexities and value, it does serve to provide a clear and concise picture of their distinct overarching purpose. They are intended to provide for the reader a guide to embark upon curriculum decision making from a wisdom orientation. By remaining conscious and considerate of these modes, or using them as a guide to evoke democratic curricular decisions, the reader may find his or her way to the wisdom orientation. According to Henderson and Kesson, the 7 modes of inquiry are always present in every curriculum decision; it is their predominance that varies. In addition, the modes do no exist in isolation of one another. Again, even though the map may give some the impression that one cycles through the 7 modes during the decision making process, the modes are not intended to be perceived as situated in a linear fashion. They should not be taken as a step-by-step guide to decision making. The 7 modes of inquiry ebb and flow, fluidly dancing their way through the decision making process. The authors even confess that it may appear artificial to separate them. To this end, Henderson and Kesson state “…it is useful to have a deep understanding of the parts to better understand the whole, but now that we have separated these modes of inquiry out for analytical purposes, it is time to put them back together again” (p. 63). After this close examination, they proceed to give concrete suggestions for employing the 7 modes of inquiry to scaffold thinking and implementing a curriculum wisdom approach to curricular decision-making. It is through the candid reflections of practitioners that the significance of the wisdom approach is elucidated. Curriculum Wisdom includes many authentic personal narratives written by teachers and administrators. The authors have also included three commentaries that examine curriculum wisdom from an international perspective. Taking a wisdom approach to curriculum decision-making is, of course, to benefit the students in the classroom. The authors could have presented the effects of the wisdom orientation by describing hypothetical or intended outcomes. Instead, they wisely chose to demonstrate the potential of applying the wisdom orientation to curriculum decision-making through practitioners’ actual experience. Authentic and understandable, these reflections read like they could be written by at teacher or administrator in the reader’s hometown. They bring genuine and personable depth to the book with sincere practitioner language and thoughts. Additionally, Henderson and Kesson are fully cognizant of the fact that this approach to curriculum decision-making may not resonate with everyone. To this end, they candidly address that curriculum wisdom oriented decision-making may present challenges for practitioners. They not only elucidate these challenges, but also again scaffold them with real-life examples from curriculum decision-makers. All in all, Curriculum Wisdom is relatively easy to understand. Entry into the prevailing ideas of the text is smooth; the authors clearly articulate their understanding of the contemporary institutionalized curriculum decision-making process. While a deep examination of the current state of curriculum decision-making by the authors in this text might have been excessively time consuming and redundant for many, it is important for the reader to have a relatively firm grasp of current institutionalized and standards based curricular decision making practices when making entrance to this text. Should a reader lack this understanding, the heart and purpose of the text may prove to be especially, albeit not completely, elusive. Henderson and Kesson draw the reader in to Curriculum Wisdom with a defensible argument for their idea that the decision making process is in need of reexamination. The terminology throughout the book appears easily accessible to practitioners at every level, and the reflective narratives give the wisdom approach the authentic clarity most necessary for understanding. In addition, the authors take the time to deliberately and clearly explain concepts and words that may be unfamiliar to the reader. For example, to illustrate the shift from one curricular decision making orientation to another, the authors explain paradigmatic shifts. While I personally was already familiar with the notion of paradigm shifts, I found their explanation to be a useful review of the concept that was neither oversimplified nor condescending to the reader. Curriculum Wisdom does, however, pose for the reader some distinct challenges. First, as stated earlier, the holographic map of the 7 modes of inquiry is difficult for the reader to envision in the way that the authors intend. Instead, my own thinking was ensnared as I attempted to understand the map itself instead of its significant and central purpose in the text. Frankly, though, I am hard-pressed to conceive of a viable alternative. For this reason I would suggest that a reader not struggle at length to grasp the map presented, and instead imagine or construct a map for his or her own use. To some readers, a map of the 7 modes of inquiry may serve little if any purpose. Second, the wisdom orientation may be illusive to those practitioners who are unfamiliar with various existing approaches to curriculum decision-making and curriculum studies at large. While Henderson and Kesson make an effort to examine problems present in contemporary institutionalized curriculum decision-making practice, they do not fully explain to the reader what exactly that process entails. It is necessary upon entering the text to possess an at least cursory understanding of how curriculum decisions are made in U.S. public schools at large. Additionally, the authors have chose not to address other curriculum decision making points of reference that may serve as intermediaries between institutionalized curriculum and a wisdom orientation, such as constructivist best practice. It may be difficult for some readers to make the potentially significant conceptual leap from institutionalized curriculum as standards and benchmarks handed down from state departments of education to a wisdom orientation. For these reasons, as an instructor of preservice teachers, I believe this book would not work well as a singular text in the undergraduate classroom. To engage preservice teachers in the Curriculum Wisdom text, it is first necessary to closely examine contemporary institutionalized curriculum decision-making, as well as other orientations. Before engaging in the wisdom orientation, preservice and practicing teachers, as well as other curriculum decision-makers, must have a relatively firm grasp of what curriculum decisions are and how they are made. With this exceptionally important scaffolding in place, however, there is great value to employing this book in the teacher preparatory classroom. I firmly believe that Curriculum Wisdom is an invaluable asset to the current conversation of curriculum decision-making. I am in keeping with the authors’ opinion that institutionalized curriculum decision-making in the U.S. today is in desperate need of close examination and restructuring. In this book, Henderson and Kesson deliberately and clearly pose for the readers a viable alternative to contemporary institutionalized curriculum decision-making. They embed within their ideas the authentic and sincere voices of practitioners who have chosen to subscribe to the wisdom orientation and subsequently negotiated their curriculum decision making from that perspective. Much to their credit, Henderson and Kesson do not propose that the reader in any way disregard or disengage in today’s curriculum conversation. Nor does their wisdom orientation exclude or isolate individuals from that conversation. Instead, the authors thoughtfully invite all readers -- including but not limited to teachers, administrators, and legislators – to reconsider the way practitioners and others approach and consider important curriculum decisions in the U.S. Like the democratic decision making process they present to the reader, Henderson and Kesson have created a text is in all ways inclusive; Curriculum Wisdom addresses a broad spectrum of reasons that readers may engage in the wisdom orientation, as well as clear and supportive guidance to navigate that engagement. Furthermore, unlike some other books in the field that propose change in almost vehement battle cries, Curriculum Wisdom approaches reexamining contemporary curriculum practice one school at a time, or even at the individual level. This book gives voice to a conversation that I believe has been quietly uttered in the minds of practitioners across the country that have felt the marginalization of their students by the institutionalized curriculum. Its distinct and significant purpose is to provide for the reader a viable alternative to passive acceptance of the contemporary institutionalized curriculum, and scaffold the journey to achieve that end. Once more accentuating that I think it is necessary for the reader to have or pursue the aforementioned background knowledge to authentically engage in the text, I believe this book may serve as a valuable tool in teacher preparatory undergraduate and graduate classrooms. I imagine it would be most useful to an instructor or facilitator that has the time and inclination to also support students as they examine the seminal writings that ground Curriculum Wisdom. While Henderson and Kesson cite many curriculum theorists to establish and support their position, the foundational work of Dewey, Schwab, and Kegan are significantly complementary. This book gives rise to the reality of theory; it constructs a working model for practitioners to bring valuable but at times logistically illusive theory to life in curriculum decision-making. Most importantly, Curriculum Wisdom is a firm and reasonable starting point for one teacher, a faculty or administrative body to begin a conversation on how to reorient their practice to a lifelong deliberative journey of democratic, wisdom oriented curriculum decision making. About the Reviewer Laurel K. Chehayl Prior to engaging in her doctoral studies, Laurel Chehayl taught high school English and language arts, public speaking, drama, and journalism for six years. She is currently writing her dissertation, a qualitative study centered on how preservice secondary teachers consider urban schools and navigate an early urban field placement. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Carnoy, Martin; Jacobsen, Rebecca; Mishel, Lawrence & Rothstein, Richard. (2005). The Charter School Dust-Up: Examining the Evidence on Enrollment and Achievement. Reviewed by Larisa Warhol, Arizona State University

Carnoy, Martin; Jacobsen, Rebecca; Mishel, Lawrence & Rothstein, Richard. (2005). The Charter School Dust-Up: Examining the Evidence on Enrollment and Achievement. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute and New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 186pp. $19.95   ISBN 0-8077-4615-0 Reviewed by Larisa Warhol Arizona State University January 16, 2006 The controversy over the effectiveness of charter schools reached a boiling point in August, 2004, when the New York Times published a front page article claiming that student achievement in public schools was in fact higher than achievement in charter schools. This article was based on a publication of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a supporter of charter school reform, that analyzed unreleased data from the federal government’s National Assessment of Educational Progress. Response was immediate from charter school advocates who placed a full-page ad in the Times claiming that the AFT had employed flawed methods of analysis and was biased against charter schools. The Charter School Dust-Up: Examining the Evidence on Enrollment and Achievement comes out of this debate to contribute its own evaluation of charter school student achievement and enrollments. Providing a systematic review of the debate, Martin Carnoy, Rebecca Jacobsen, Lawrence Mishel, and Richard Rothstein seek to establish an unbiased view of charter schools by examining all available evidence for comparing public and charter school achievement and enrollment. They use data based on nineteen studies that were conducted in eleven states and the District of Columbia. They also examine findings put forth by the AFT, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and charter school advocates. Their findings reveal that charter school students do not outperform public school students; and in fact, the impact of charter schools on student achievement is negative. Beyond the data regarding student achievement, the authors also address potential policy implications and discuss commonly advanced rationales for supporting charter schools. However, they caution that the purpose of their book is not to provide an in-depth analysis of reasons for supporting charter schools or attendant policy issues. Rather the book focuses on the controversy surrounding the AFT report and its subsequent publication in the Times. Their analysis seeks to demonstrate that, based on current data, it should not be surprising that charter school student achievement is below that of public schools and that any further debate over charter school policy should proceed from this point. The authors first provide a detailed account of the reaction to the AFT report, the problems with the report, but also the problems with the critique of the report. They pay close attention to the issues that sparked the controversy. Charter school supporters cited conflict of interest on the part of the AFT and flaws in the methods of their reports (i.e., single point-in-time testing and insufficient student background information). The supporters also claim that many charter schools attract more disadvantaged students than traditional public schools, which would account for the low test scores. The authors confirm that the AFT report did have flaws. Yet they also note the hypocrisy of charter school advocates since the latter often put forth the same rationale that was used in the ATF report but in support of charter schools. For example, charter school advocates maintain that charter schools should initially be exempt from standardized testing until they have been able to stabilize their school curriculum and student body. Yet charter school advocates are unwilling to make the same concessions to public schools which might be adopting a new instructional program or have a new principal (p. 23). The authors also point out that charter school advocates have been inconsistent in their views of school assessment. Single point-in-time testing was criticized in the charter school advocates’ advertisement in the New York Times, yet the Charter School Leadership Council initially called for NAEP scores to be collected and analyzed. Only after the test results did not reveal higher student achievement in charter schools was this assessment method considered flawed by charter school advocates (p. 27). Discussion of the controversy also includes evaluation of assessment standards and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). While the authors claim not to be discussing policy issues, they do provide a critique of current NCLB standards and comment on the limitations of standardize testing as the only means of measuring student achievement. Having set the background of the controversy surrounding the New York Times article and ATF report of 2004, the authors systematically go through all available reports and data gathered on both the national and state level dealing with charter school and public school enrollment and achievement. The bulk of the book is dedicated to this evaluation of the data and reports from these various states. This analysis of the data available on both charter and public schools reveals the comprehensive examination that the authors give to support their findings. They also scrutinize specific examples cited by charter school advocates and reports that support the charter school movement. One argument on the side of charter school advocates against the AFT report was that charter schools serve a high proportion of disadvantaged students, thus resulting in the lower test scores. Examining data from each of the various states, the authors could find no evidence to support this claim. They provide the specific example of the KIPP network of charter schools, which has been held up as an extremely effective model for disadvantaged youth. Using both available published data on KIPP enrollment and test scores as well as teacher interviews, the authors could find no evidence that KIPP actively recruits a more disadvantaged student body nor that it has lower test scores as a result of serving disadvantages students (p. 65). The claim by charter school advocates that charter schools served a more disadvantaged population was not supported by available data. Next, examining both the AFT report and the later NCES report on charter schools, the authors found little variation in the analysis of test scores, thus undermining the charter school advocates claim that the AFT report misused the NAEP data. The authors next go through state-level studies conducted on charter school student achievement. Some studies provided data on charter schools that had been operating for over three years, the interval of time that the charter school advocates claim is required for school stability. These data revealed that these students were also under-performing. The authors focus on the Hoxby report. Caroline Hoxby, Allie S. Freed Professor of Economics at Harvard, is a charter schools advocate, and her reports were published after the New York Times article. Many charter school advocates claimed her study was more valid because it had a larger sample, and it also showed that charter schools do have high student achievement (p.98). The authors provide a close analysis of Hoxby’s report that reveals some serious flaws. She violated the evaluation standards that the New York Times charter school advocates had put forth. She also had weaker performance measurements than the NEAP data and used a single point-in-time analysis. Her study also contradicted findings from earlier state studies. Based on their findings from these various reports, the authors’ overall analysis reveals that charter school students are consistently achieving less than public school students. The authors conclude by describing important lessons learned from the debate over charter schools prompted by the 2004 AFT report. They caution that accurate school and student assessments cannot be made using current standardize testing methods. More precise student characteristics need to be taken into account and year-to-year analysis should be done on the same group of students. They maintain that any initial claims made that charter schools will result in higher student achievement have proven groundless. Also, lower student achievement is not based on charter schools having enrolled more disadvantaged children. Charter schools instead do show increased segregation and greater student mobility. The authors acknowledge that some charter schools do produce higher student performance, but they question whether the benefit of maintaining these few schools with current charter school policy is worth the harm caused by the system as a whole. This book is put forth by the authors as an unbiased view of charter schools and as an evaluation of their student achievement and enrollment by the Economic Policy Institute in the wake of the controversy over the 2004 AFT report. Controversy over the validity of charter schools has been widespread since their inception. (Bracey, 2005). The Charter School Dust-Up: Examining the Evidence on Enrollment and Achievement contributes a valuable and clear analysis of current charter school performance. The authors succeed in providing comprehensive evidence to support their final conclusion that charter schools on the whole have been ineffective. They also provide important commentary on current assessment policy and measures although they claim that is not their goal. While the authors claim to maintain an unbiased view of charter schools, the books reads like a critique of charter school advocates and their positions. In the Introduction, the authors explain they will repeatedly be using the term “zealots” to refer to charter school advocates, particularly those who maintain the superiority of charter schools regardless of credible data to the contrary. They claim to use this term to distinguish those who rushed to support charter schools in the wake of AFT report versus those who did not. Regardless of their explanation, when reading the book, the excessive use of the term “zealots” for these charter school advocates influences how the reader perceives charter school supporters and implies a negative opinion of them. Although the authors claim to see some merit in charter schools, they appear critical of the charter school movement in general and the inconsistent opinions and reports of charter school advocates. References Bracey, G. (2005). Charter Schools' Performance and Accountability: A Disconnect. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University. Retrieved January 16, 2006, from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0505-113-EPRU.pdf About the Reviewer Larisa Warhol is a PhD student in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies program at Arizona State University. She formerly worked as an education consultant with many charter schools in the Philadelphia, PA area. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Allen, Matthew. (2004). Smart thinking: skills for critical understanding and writing. Reviewed by Jill L. Woolums, University of California, Berkeley

Allen, Matthew. (2004). Smart thinking: skills for critical understanding and writing. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Pp. xi + 193 $19.95   ISBN 0-19-551733- 4 Reviewed by Jill L. Woolums University of California, Berkeley January 23, 2006 Written for the student or teacher of critical thinking Smart Thinking is a guidebook or textbook on the structure and practical use of critical thinking. It also serves as a reference book by providing a glossary of key terms and concepts, by providing a bibliography of books and sources on knowledge, reasoning, writing and communicating, and by outlining important critical thinking skills. As a librarian and instructor of Internet research skills, I found it also valuable for teachers and students of information literacy. A knowledgeable academic, author Matthew Allen is a university instructor of critical thinking. He coordinates the Internet Studies Program and is the Association Dean of Teaching and Learning and Humanities at Australia’s Curtin University of Technology. Allen writes in a clear, straightforward, interactive style suitable for a Web-savvy audience. As he states in the Preface, Allen writes with a bias that expresses greater interest in the communication and contextual issues involved in learning and applying critical thinking skills, which he believes are as or more important than abstract, logical reasoning skills. The book focuses on developing one’s own reasoning ability rather than relying on others’ arguments. The Second Edition goes beyond the First Edition by expanding on more complicated reasoning and research skills and by providing more models and examples. The book builds sequentially chapter by chapter, providing narrative, lecture-like sections, explanations and exercises. Chapters are well-organized, providing an introduction to key concepts, explanations, concrete examples, diagrams when appropriate (as in the chapter on casting), and several types of interactive exercises for students to test their learning and apply concepts to individual issues. Exercises are found at the end of each chapter. Some exercises stimulate smart thinking by asking readers to apply the concepts of the chapter to key issues in their lives. For these questions, there are neither right nor wrong answers. Answers instead reflect smart thinking skills, incorporating the need to ask smart questions. Other exercises require analytical problem-solving, reading comprehension and synthesis of concepts in the planning of an essay or report. Particularly helpful are the concept checks at the end of the chapters. The book is organized, as one would hope, logically. Chapter One defines smart thinking, explains how to study smart thinking, and tells why we need to think smart. Chapters Two through Four breakdown the elements of reasoning: claims, links, dependent premises. Chapters Five and Six demonstrate how to evaluate well-formed and well-founded claims and how to determine the quality of reasoning according to relevance, use of premises, strength of support and authority. Chapter Seven distinguishes deductive and inductive reasoning, categorical and propositional logic and explains causal reasoning, reasoning from generalization, reasoning from specific cases, reasoning from analogy, and reasoning from terms. Chapter Eight, one of the best in the book, applies smart thinking to the research process and information seeking. The final two chapters demonstrate how to use all of the skills outlined and explained in the previous chapters to plan and create the analytical structure for a report. The appendices provide some of the most useful and practical information in the book. The Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts provides a ready reference of definitions for clarification. The annotated bibliography found in Further Reading enables readers to pursue the author’s perspective on critical thinking and to find other guidebooks for skill development in both reasoning and writing. A primary weakness of the book is linked to one of its strengths. While it purports to be a guide for students, the book is somewhat cumbersome in its structure and neglects to clearly connect some of the skills described with the ways they can be directly useful to students. Finally, at the end of the book, Allen attaches a four page Guide to Important Skills. The general and specific questions asked, such as “What do I need to do to be convincing in my reports, essays, and presentations?” would have had significantly greater impact and aroused more interest in explanations, had they been woven into the chapters that provide the answers. The questions in Guide to Important Skills are clear and relevant to students’ real academic needs. They are in fact a primary motive for reading the book. Therefore, had they been better integrated into the text, they may have made it more readable and user-friendly. In particular, had they been emphasized in the introductions to each relevant chapter and reflected in the reviews, they would have helped the author achieve his intent of linking the study of critical thinking to communication and contextual issues. They would thereby provide an incentive to persevere through the exercises in analytical logic. The Guide to Important Skills, while an excellent addition to the book, needs further expansion. Similarly, the final two chapters on how to use all the skills Allen outlines in the creation of a new report could have been further developed to make this a better textbook not only for developing comprehension through critical thinking, but also for developing superior writing skills. Nevertheless, these final chapters are an excellent beginning to understanding what goes into a carefully thought out and planned research paper. The author does provide references for further reading on the subject of writing in the Further Reading appendix. One piece of back matter missing from the book is an index. While the table of contents and chapter outline is very clear, an index would be especially helpful, especially if the book is to be used as a textbook for a critical thinking or information literacy class. An index is an important study tool. Smart Thinking, in Chapter One, does briefly address the “Why” of critical thinking, or the motivation for learning these skills. Allen acknowledges that for students, smart thinking helps one study. For adults in general, smart thinking helps us perform well at work, makes us better decision-makers, and makes us active community members. However, these statements are general and need greater specificity. The Guide to Important Skills is a quick brushstroke to achieve a little specificity and functions more as an afterthought. Smart Thinking does provide noteworthy substance on the nature of critical thinking. Allen explains in depth what he considers to be the four key elements of smart thinking; i.e., (1) considering issues in depth and with breadth; (2) critically assessing information, without taking anything for granted or making easy assumptions about the truth of claims or the interrelationships of claims; (3) relating texts to the contexts within which they are produced, presented or used; and (4) seeing that knowledge and reasoning are two perspectives of one concept: that ideas and objects are understood in relation to other ideas and objects. Allen says “Smart thinking is about reasoning, which is about the use and communication of knowledge….once you understand that knowledge consists of innumerable interrelations between small bits of information then you will be able to find, shape, and use knowledge for yourself….It is always a social act…. The connections and relations between ideas, events, proposals and so on only become meaningful in the context of how, when, where, and why they are communicated with others.” (p. 5) Allen teaches that the key skill needed to be an effective and thoughtful thinker who is able to engage with and understand the world is not an ability to find the answers. It is the ability to ask the right questions. This premise weaves throughout the book, both in its design and its content. As a research librarian and college instructor, I particularly appreciated Chapter Eight, where Allen applies his ideas about research, reasoning and analysis to the finding of information. He describes the finding of information as a reasoning process, stressing that information and information sources are understood by where we find them, how they relate to other information, how they are classified, and how they are to be used. Information extracted from a source must be critically and appropriately used within a new document. These skills are increasingly important in developing the information literacy and Internet research abilities necessary for performing research in a digital environment. In the print and library environment, the presence of editors and knowledgeable selectors has meant that information found could more likely be relied upon for credibility. In the Internet environment where anything can be published by anyone with or without credentials, critical evaluation is a task the user must perform for him/herself with little help from experts. The ability to ask appropriate questions about the who, what, where, when, and why of the information context, and the ability to recognize claims, arguments, explanations, assumptions, and values are critical thinking skills demanded of the information literate researcher as well as writer. ACRL (American College & Research Libraries) has set forth five information literacy competency standards for higher education. These standards specify the performance indicators and achievement outcomes necessary to be a skilled, information literate researcher in the digital age. Allen’s Smart Thinking supports all of these standards. His text is therefore particularly useful as a reference or guidebook for information literacy instructors who are constructing curriculum materials to teach students how to evaluate and critique information sources. The ACRL standards are as follows: Standard One. The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed. This includes (1) defining and articulating the need for information; (2) identifying a variety of types and formats of potential sources; (3) considers the costs and benefits of acquiring information; (4) reevaluates the nature and extent of the information need. Allen adds an insight relevant to Standard One. “Critical academic work about any topic is designed, first and foremost, to discover the right questions to ask; the answers come later, once those questions have been determined….Thinking first about questions is much smarter than trying to think first about answers.” (p. 104) Allen explains that the information need to which ACRL refers is essentially the need to ask smart questions. To ask smart questions is to engage in the process of reasoning and to understand the links between claims. Questions help the researcher to clarify and focus in on particular aspects of a topic and to establish parameters for analysis. Allen elaborates that this process determines “what we do consider and what we do not consider; what broadly defined bodies of knowledge we will and will not call upon; what definitions of terms we will use within our reasoning; and what methods of investigation we will use.” (p.105). Defining a topic is a process of refining our focus that, in turn, provides a level of precision that enables one to efficiently and effectively search. Standard Two. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently. This includes (1) selecting the most appropriate investigative methods of information retrieval systems for accessing the needed information; (2) constructs and implements effectively-designed search strategies; (3) retrieves information online or in person using a variety of methods; (4) refines the search strategy as necessary; (5) extracts, records, and manages the information and its sources. Allen offers smart thinking tips to enhance the development of a search strategy. He stresses that information is often understood by where we find it and by how it is organized. Information is organized into monographs, periodicals, web sites, email lists, reference books, etc. These formats organize knowledge and make it accessible. The researcher needs to recognize that these formats do not make the information “analytical, sensible or useable” (p. 106). They do, however, imply that certain critical judgments have been made about the value and reliability of the information found there. For example, peer-reviewed journals are weighted more heavily than popular magazines. Researchers must also distinguish between direct or primary sources and indirect or secondary sources. Allen comments: “Sometimes we will want to make claims in our reasoning that convey information in the claims themselves. And sometimes we will want to make claims about the fact that a certain type of claim, or group of claims, has been made by others. Developing the latter type of writing is essential in good critical work and , thus, requires you to develop skills in knowing about sources of knowledge.” (p.115). Standard Three. The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his/her knowledge base and value system. This includes: (1) summarizing the main ideas to be extracted from the information gathered; (2) articulates and applies initial criteria for evaluating both the information and its sources; (3) synthesizes main ideas to construct new concepts; (4) compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information; (5) determines whether the new knowledge has an impact on the individual’s value system and takes steps to reconcile differences; (6) validates understanding and interpretation through discourse with others, including subject-experts and/or practitioners; (7) determines whether the initial query should be revised. Allen’s ­Smart Thinking is especially valuable in developing the evaluative skills required by Standard Three. In chapters Two through Seven, he describes in detail how to understand language, how to see claims and the links between claims in written communication, how to assess the analytical structure of reasoning through the use of casting, how to recognize dependent premises, and how to rank claims and the links between claims in terms of effectiveness, relevance, and authority. He distinguishes deductive from inductive reasoning, and categorical from propositional logic. He considers types of arguments containing elements of reasoning from causes, specific cases, terms, generalizations, and analogies. All of these skills sharpen the information literate student’s skills in critical evaluation of information in all formats and containing any kind of content. Chapters Two through Seven are useful in the instruction of critical thinking in the context of information retrieval from online, or for that matter any, sources. Standard Four. The information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose. This includes: (1) applying new and prior information to the planning and creation of a particular product or performance; (2) revising the development process for the product or performance; (3) communicating the product or performance effectively to others. Chapters Nine and Ten of Smart Thinking address synthesizing information into a planned report. Allen focuses primarily on the initial planning of a written document, with emphasis on the key analytical questions to ask before developing a structure for a narrative. He suggests that the same skills used to analyze and critically assess the works of others may be employed successfully when applied to outlining a written piece that incorporates understanding gained from such analyses and assessments. Allen offers: “The key advantage of the analytical structure format is that it lays out, in advance of writing or presentation, the structure of key claims and the links between them in a way that is driven by the analysis--the reasoning--rather than by the way we will present the argument or explanation.” (p.132). Smart Thinking provides techniques and exercises to enable a student achieve ACRL’s Standard Four. Standard Five. The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally. This includes: (1) understanding many of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology; (2) following laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information; (3) acknowledging the use of information (via citation) in communicating the product or performance. Smart Thinking is a manual for learning how to critically assess information within its context. The techniques and exercises throughout the book aim at developing skills to enable students to extrapolate and evaluate information and knowledge in the works of others and to incorporate and create information and knowledge in their own work. Allen clarifies how one’s critical assessment of others’ works and incorporating citations to those works, strengthens one’s research contribution. Plagiarism or other illegal ways of misusing information are entirely contrary to his thesis. If Allen’s work is to be seriously considered and believed, it provides a rationale and an incentive for eliminating both negligence in thinking and temptation to commit illegal acts with respect to the misuse of information and knowledge. In Chapter Ten, to further emphasize this point, Allen provides for review a sample text, appropriately entitled, “The Value of Referencing”. The text demonstrates and explains how citation strengthens the credibility a written document. Allen has done a commendable job of updating the definition of what should be considered critical thinking, especially within a digital environment. He takes the process beyond abstract logical thinking to reasoning as applied to the whole environment of communication, knowledge and information seeking. Smart Thinking is useful as a reference book as well as a text for the instruction of critical thinking in information age. Smart Thinking is particularly valuable for librarians and instructors charged with the task of teaching information literacy skills to college students. About the Reviewer Jill L. Woolums, M.L.I.S, is a librarian at the Education Psychology Library, University of California, Berkeley and an instructor of Internet research at Ohlone College. She has taught college level research and writing classes, has authored articles, and possesses a master’s degree in English from Mills College. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.