Strong-Wilson, Teresa. (2008). Bringing Memory Forward: Storied Remembrance in Social Justice Education with Teachers. Reviewed by Patricia H. Hinchey, Pennsylvania State University

Strong-Wilson, Teresa. (2008). Bringing Memory Forward: Storied Remembrance in Social Justice Education with Teachers. New York: Peter Lang. Pp. 186     $30     ISBN 978-0-8204-8874-5 Reviewed by Patricia H. Hinchey Pennsylvania State University July 21, 2008 Like many others, Teresa Strong-Wilson is concerned with the important issue of “white teacher resistance”—the difficulty white teachers have acknowledging race and privilege as integral components of their life experience, identify formation and perceptions. In Bringing Memory Forward, the author first analyzes the source of such resistance and then sets about constructing a pedagogical process to address it: What are white teachers so attached to that makes such self-critique difficult? Further, what kinds of processes could be set in motion to bring these attachments into question, but in such a way that the learner (here, the teacher) does not feel alienated and paralyzed by her “thoughtlessness” but instead moved to think and act? (p. 2) The text works to answer these questions through autobiographical analysis, recent theorizing, and teacher action research. A slight adjustment in a common quote can serve as a one-sentence summary of the author’s thinking: “How do I know who I am until I see what I’ve said?” That is, Strong-Wilson believes that an analysis of stories—primarily stories we tell about ourselves—offers promising pedagogy for reducing resistance. She posits that when we write narratives of our experience, our choices in such areas as content, wording and literary devices provide material we can question in order to work toward greater self-awareness. Integral to this process is identifying what she calls “touchstones,” or particular stories that we cherish, that we return to again and again. Critically interrogating our stories and placing them next to counter-stories—stories of others that offer alternative worlds—can produce a disequilibrium that often leads to new understandings. Modeling the kind of analysis she promotes, the author­ (a white Canadian) devotes the first three chapters to probing her own autobiographical work, “Ravenwing: A White Teacher’s Experiences of Living and Teaching within a First Nations Community.” In the first chapter, she explores how her “preoccupation” with geography in “Ravenwing” (her exile to the wilderness) suggests traces of a colonial mentality that she explicitly denies in her narrative. She also details the ways in which the narrative functions as allegory for other teachers, a “how to get through this dangerous territory” guide much like Pilgrim’s Progress (p. 21). Chapter 2 explores the implications of such elements as setting (most often community spaces, not classrooms) and genre, the latter echoing teacher travel narratives and female travel narratives, including typical strains of “feminitopia.” Chapter 3 is a detailed analysis of Northrop Frye’s influence on her own intellectual development, most especially how Frye’s concept of “garrison mentality” ( a “terror of the soul” in regard to nature) has served as one of her own touchstones, influencing not only her life choices but also inevitably her imagination. By providing counter-stories in this chapter (an Indigenous depiction of nature, a parody of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden), Strong-Wilson helps illuminate their role in the analytical process she portrays. The extensive and detailed analysis in these chapters demonstrates how a close look at autobiographical writing allowed the author to identify elements that embed previously unacknowledged cultural influences and perspectives. Chapter 5 begins moving away from Strong-Wilson’s own experiences to those of teachers she worked with. Generally, the chapter explores the role of counter-stories in discomfiting teachers and moving them to consider how Indigenous peoples were constructed in their early experiences. Chapters 6 and 7 delve deeply into the concept of touchstones (those stories to which we are most attached) and how they acquire their power, theorizing about “sources of attachment.” Chapter 8 explores the impact of new technologies and new modalities of “text,” including how technology may affect touchstone stories and whether it is likely to significantly change imaginary renderings of the Other. Chapter 8 is a brief, simple, and simply told summary of everything before, a brief glance at how her own work with her own stories—her look back at memory—allowed her to move forward into new mental landscapes and stories. As I turned the last page, what struck me most was the relative simplicity and accessibility of the book’s close, a stark contrast to the dense chapters that had preceded it. The work is replete with specialized terminology that may come easily to the author but that presents obstacle after obstacle to the reader trying to follow the sense of the discussion: currere; phronesis; nachträglichkeit; sprezzatura; topos; mythoi; rerum urum factum. Of course there are times when terms from other languages are exact in ways not possible in English, but the frequency with which such terms occur in this text suggest that is not the case here. Not only does the work rely heavily on extremely specialized terminology, but it also includes frequent and unexplained references to other writers whom readers may not know. For example, Strong-Wilson says of a sentence from Grumet, “Gerard Manley Hopkins would exult over her crafting of sound with sense” (p. 11). Here, the author not only assumes that her readers will experience the line as she did, but also that they will know the work of a nineteenth century English, Jesuit poet well enough to understand her meaning. It seems as if either the writer felt the need to earn credibility by stressing the breadth and depth of her knowledge, or she assumed that all readers will have the same background knowledge and specialized vocabulary that she does. The first seems unlikely, since having the book published already confers considerable credibility. Who, then, is the intended audience? The book appears in the Complicated Conversation series (edited by William Pinar), and given that context, it may make sense for Strong-Wilson to assume a fairly sophisticated readership. However: it’s not clear what kind of expertise is assumed. As a reader, I brought to the text: extensive formal study of language and literacy (and so familiarity with references to folks like Hopkins, Rosenblatt, Sartre and Camus); extensive experience in teacher education (and familiarity with research on teacher thinking, the difficulties of white resistance, and writers like Britzman and Grumet); and, familiarity with philosophy (especially critical theory and its emphasis on Freire’s “conscientization”). Still: the reading was slow and frustrating. I had to activate background knowledge from different and constantly shifting fields of expertise, sometimes even from sentence to sentence (as when Grumet’s autobiography became entangled with Hopkins’ poetry). For me, the end result of the dazzling display of erudition was frustration that each sparkling term or reference slowed me down, detoured me away from my main goal of simply understanding and following the author’s thinking as she detailed a complicated but interesting theory. I think the writing style is an unfortunate choice, because I believe Strong-Wilson’s essential ideas about the potential role and benefits of autobiography and counter-story in teacher education classrooms have considerable potential. To use the ideas, however, teacher educators will first need to understand them. Without already knowing their way around literature, reader response theory and assorted other fields, however, readers may not have the perseverance, or even simply the time, to work their way through this text. Specialists already comfortable in this domains, however, may well find it insightful and instructive. About the Reviewer Pat Hinchey is Associate Professor of education at the Worthington Scranton campus of Pennsylvania State University, where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in education theory and policy, race and gender, action research, and media literacy. She is a research fellow of the Education Policy Research Unit at Arizona State University and of the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Her most recent books are Becoming a Critical Educator (2004) and Action Research (2008), both published by Peter Lang.

Paras, Eric. (2006). Foucault 2.0: Beyond Power and Knowledge. Reviewed by Sam Rocha, Ohio State University

Paras, Eric. (2006). Foucault 2.0: Beyond Power and Knowledge. NY: Other Press. Pp. vii + 240     $29     ISBN 1-59051-234-0 Reviewed by Sam Rocha Ohio State University July 27, 2008 Foucault 2.0: Beyond Power and Knowledge (Paras, 2006) is a short, accessible—and exhaustive—book. The lengthiest section is the reference material. Notes, bibliography, and index are just shy of one hundred pages. This is a telling sign of the project. Eric Paras presents an erudite intellectual biography of Michel Foucault that, along with painting a careful historical portrait, makes a remarkable argument. Paras’ archival study reveals that Foucault ended his life recovering the free subject he so famously (or infamously) put to rest. This recovery should be of special interest to educational theorists as it tenses and relieves a perennial question of learning: who? Paras’ account resists, and ultimately repudiates, describing the Foucauldian corpus as one dressed in a seamless garment. Instead he casts Foucault clothed in patchwork. These patches are presented chronologically with careful attention to Parisian intellectual culture and the major socio-political trends significant to Foucault’s life. Paras splits the book into three major periods: Discourse, Power, and Subjects. This serves to depict three seemingly different Foucaults. The first is the Foucault of The Order of Things (1966) and Archeology of Knowledge (1969). This is the vehemently anti-Sartre, post-human, epistemologically concerned, systematist of discourse. This first Foucault, when impacted by the changes of 1968 and the lukewarm (at best) reception of Archeology of Knowledge and the prison reform movement of early 1970’s, began to transition from archeology to genealogy, from discourse to power, which birthed Discipline and Punish (1975) and the emergence of the second Foucault. This second Foucault was deeply impacted by the Iranian Revolution (1978-79) and the nouveaux philosophes. Where the previous period was moving “beyond Sartre” this one was getting “beyond Marx.” While the previous was epistemologically driven, this one was political. While the previous Foucault marked the death of “man,” this one marked the birth of the gulag. Yet, at the end of this period, Paras notes that Foucault admitted, in the 1980 Howison Lecture at Berkeley, that he had ”insisted maybe too much on the techniques of domination.” (p. 94) Instead he proposed a description of government as the tension within the formation of self. This was the meaning of his course taught the previous year, The Birth of Biopolitics. In this shift the individual was no longer determined, she was now, at least, somewhat free. This anticipated the third Foucault. This third, and final, Foucault, is the one who took up the study of the ancient world, religious practice, and the arts of living. Paras remarks; “Choice, freedom, reflection, experience, agency: these were the undisguised hallmarks of Foucault’s last philosophical interventions.” (p. 147) Yet this period was not a new one altogether, Paras concludes. He describes this final Foucault as a pendulum. That is, while Foucault began in complete opposition to Sartre and phenomenology’s free human subject, he ends saying in June 1984 (the year of his untimely death) that “I believe solidly in human liberty” (p. 147). While he used “experience” in Madness and Civilization (1961), only to abandon it for nearly two decades, he recovers it in the end. “Man” was reborn and its life, its living—itself was free—to be a work of art. There is no substitute for Paras’ moving recapitulation of his project that ends the book: Foucault created the twentieth century’s most devastating critique of the free subject—and then, in a voice that by the end trembled from pain and debility, liquidated it. For the notion of the end of subjectivity had offered a kind of cold clarity, as well as an immensely thought-provoking lens through which to view the world. But ultimately, only the notion of strong subjectivity proved warm enough to accommodate an overwhelming passion for life and an inextinguishable belief in the primacy of human liberty. (p. 158) Paras’ contention cannot be discredited as questionably researched. I can hardly imagine a more thoroughly investigated, and meticulously cited, argument. The question is one of intent and interpretation. That is, does Paras intend to transfigure Foucault into something shockingly new and beyond? Does he attempt to tell us who Foucault really is and what he really meant? Prima facie, this seems to be the case. Paras appears to propose a new version of Foucault that moves beyond the old ones. This newer Foucault, seen through the recently available lens of his lecture courses at the Collège de France, seems more appealing, less troubling, and likely to stay the same. This is a Foucault who had no singular project, and, yet, somehow, ended his work much like he started it. This runs into the danger of deciding that the way Foucault died was, in fact, the way he was/is. A simple-minded reading might be lead to think that the later Foucault is somehow better, more authentic—beyond—all the others. Or, perhaps, an insecure reading might feel threatened that if Foucault somehow “turned out” differently than was previously suspected, he might resist being used in the other, older, ways and that former work might be discredited. Paras’ book might be deceiving in certain ways, but not for these reasons. Foucault 2.0 does not present itself as a new idol for Foucauldian worship. Instead, it serves as a brief sketch of Foucault to be added to the icons already begun. None of these will ever be Michel Foucault. He is dead. Within educational research, Foucault has and will continue to prove insightful in addressing a variety of topics. It seems that only the imagination can limit the possible uses of Foucault. It is, however, especially difficult to resist co-opting Foucault’s expansive corpus and colonizing it for a specific use and interpretation that, in many cases, can prove idolatrous. This book is, at the very least, an antidote for that tendency. It will challenge any “user” to consider Foucault’s own freedom to change and contradict himself without absolutist preference. Considering the special attention given to the free subject, Paras also opens the door for Foucauldian approaches from educational theorists who may have felt alienated by other exclusively post-human interpretations. This should be especially welcome in education where “subject(s)” take special priority. We should not, however, think that these different Foucauldian opportunities correspond to a “new” Foucault. If Paras was offering a “new Foucault” we should be alarmed. However, if this Foucault is nothing more and nothing less than the difficult, paradoxical, and contradictory one we already “know,” albeit fleetingly and mysteriously (and I think it is), than this book should only add to the complex irony of his short, yet potent, life. Images of a seamless, anti-subject-power/knowledge-systematist, who began his journey with one project in mind and saw it through to the end, are, instead, the ones that we should consider suspect. Paras seems to understand—and agree with— the inevitability of a 2.01 and beyond. What should be daunting are the archival resources, not unlike that of Foucault’s own work, that Paras shows to be required. In the end, whether right or wrong (and that seems to be such a silly question), Foucault 2.0 introduces another not-so-new Michel Foucault who continues to remind us: “Do not ask me who I am and do not tell me to remain the same.” (Foucault, 2002) Reference Foucault, M. (2002). Archeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge. About the Reviewer Sam Rocha is a doctoral student in Philosophy of Education at Ohio State University, and a Gates Millennium Scholar. His research interests include phenomenology, pragmatism, and aesthetics as they pertain to, and critique, education and schooling. He can be reached at rocha.8@osu.edu.

Milson, Andrew J. & Alibrandi, Marsha. (Eds) (2008). Digital Geography: Geospatial Technologies in the Social Studies Classroom. Reviewed by Zafer Unal, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg

Milson, Andrew J. & Alibrandi, Marsha. (Eds) (2008). Digital Geography: Geospatial Technologies in the Social Studies Classroom. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing Pp. 336     $40     ISBN 978-1593116729 Reviewed by Zafer Unal, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg July 27, 2008 A recent report by the National Research Council (2006), Learning to Think Spatially, states that Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have the ability to meet four educational goals: (1) support the inquiry process; (2) be useful in solving problems in a wide range of real-world contexts; (3) facilitate learning across a range of school subjects; and (4) provide a rich, generative, inviting and challenging problem-solving environment (p. 176). Additional research has further documented other important benefits of using GIS, such as increased motivation (McWillimas & Rooney, 1997), self-efficacy and attitudes toward technology (Baker, 2002), acquisition of spatial analysis skills (Audet & Abegg, 1996), increased mathematics ability (Coulter & Polman, 2004), and geographic and scientific content knowledge (Kerski, 2003). Although geospatial technologies have become widely used and access costs have declined, the integration of such technologies within the classroom has been alarmingly slow (Kerski 1999; Baker and Bednarz 2003). Some of the reasons for this slow integration of geospatial technologies into the classroom include a dearth of research on its effectiveness design issues related to geographic information systems (GIS) and web-based geospatial technologies (Green 2001), a general lack of geographic pedagogical content models, a shortage of related curricula, low dissemination of geospatial technology into K-12 schools (Bednarz and Schee 2006), and non-existent and/or ineffective teacher training models (Doering 2006). A timely addition to the GIS education literature has arrived. Digital Geography – Geospatial Technologies in the Social Studies Classroom is a volume in the International Social Studies Forum and co-edited by Andrew Milson and Marsha Alibrandi. Digital geography brings the collection of authors and their work together and provides a review and analysis of the theory, research, and practice related to geospatial technologies in social studies education. The book begins with the history of geospatial technologies in education, the influence of the standards movement, and the growth of an international geospatial education community are explored. While authors of this section provides definitions, background information, the history and present status of GIS, they also tried to answer what most educators agree about the future of GIS in K12 by providing the results of their interview with educators. The discussion then turns to the range and applicability of GIS in education, providing examples of the use of geospatial technologies for teaching and learning history, geography, civics, economics, and environmental science. The authors of this section introduce the development stages of different applications that apply GIS in education and experiences of students/teachers and their use of these applications for education including but not limited to My World GIS Software, GIS for History, Internet-based GIS, Mapstats for Kids, and GoogleEarth. Next, the book turns to a detailed section-by-section analysis of the reviews and critiques of recent research relevant to geospatial technologies in education. The theoretical perspectives are proposed that could guide research and practice in this field. The book concludes with an in-depth discussion on the theory, research, and practice associated with teacher preparation for using geospatial technologies in education. The authors of this section explore the importance of preparing teachers for GST expeditions with their students and makes recommendations for teacher education based on their research results. Bednarz and Audet (1999) have identified three main reasons that current approaches to teaching GIS in K-12 classrooms have not been effective: teachers inadequately trained to use GIS, a lack of teaching models to guide their pedagogy, and preservice teachers education programs that do not teach GIS in "a meaningful way" (p. 64). Digital Geography presents a comprehensive guide to history of GIS, discusses what future might bring regarding GIS, provides examples of the use of different GIS tools that are currently available, and the integration of GIS in education. Each of the authors presents their information in a knowledgeable manner, and the book is organized so as to provide useful context for the more technical and abstruse provisions. Overall, it is a resource that will prove to be especially useful for practitioners. . References Audet, R. H., & Abegg, G. L. (1996). Geographic information systems: Implications for problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 121-145. Baker, T. R. (2002). The effects of geographic information system (GIS) technologies on students' attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement in middle school science classrooms. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Baker, T., and S. Bednarz. (2003). Lessons learned from reviewing research in GIS education. Journal of Geography 102, 231-233. Bednarz, S. W., & Audet, R. H. (1999). The Status of GIS Technology in Teacher Preparation Programs. Journal of Geography, 98(2), 60-67. Bednarz, S., and J. Schee. (2006). Europe and the United States: the implementation of geographic information systems in secondary education in two contexts. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2):191-205. Coulter, B., & Polman, J. L. (2004).Enacting technology-supported inquiry learning through mapping our environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Doering, A. (2006). Adventure learning: Transformative hybrid online education. Distance Education 27(2):197-215. Green, D. R. (2001). GIS: A Sourcebook for Schools. London: Taylor & Francis. Kerski, J. J. (2003). The implementation and effectiveness of geographic information systems technology and methods in secondary education. Journal of Geography 102(3), 128-137. Kerski, J. (1999). A nationwide analysis of the implementation of GIS in high school education. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ESRI User Conference. San Diego, CA. http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc99/proceed/papers/pap202/p202.htm. McWillimas, H., & Rooney, P. (1997, March). Mapping our city: Learning to use spatial data in the middle school science classroom. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. National Research Council.(2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. About the Reviewer Zafer Unal is an assistant professor at the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg in College of Education. His areas of interest include teacher education, technology use in classrooms, parental involvement, assessment, and classroom management. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Connor, David, J. (2008). Urban Narratives: Portraits in Progress- Life at the Intersections of Learning Disability, Race, & Social Class. Reviewed by Chinwe Okpalaoka, Ohio State University

Connor, David, J. (2008).Urban Narratives: Portraits in Progress- Life at the Intersections of Learning Disability, Race, & Social Class. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Pp. 412         ISBN 978-0-8204-8804-2 Reviewed by Chinwe Okpalaoka Ohio State University July 27, 2008 The major point that Connor captures in his “portraits in progress” is the reality of African-Americans and other students of color who face what he calls the “double jeopardy” of race and disability discrimination- attending poorly funded urban schools and learning in poorly supported special education classrooms. In her foreword to the text, Wanda Blanchett reveals that these ills are supported by the silences surrounding them- silences created by the reluctance of educators and researchers to frame these ills [racism, white privilege, classism, ableism, etc] within the larger socio-political climate that creates and maintains them (p. xii). The focus of Connor’s book is on the category of students with disabilities who are predominantly of color, attend urban schools that are in poor condition, and are excluded from inclusive education programs and general education curriculum. The portraits in the book are the stories of these students’ experiences, told in their own voices, as they try to make sense of the glaring disparities between them and their predominantly white counterparts in affluent suburban schools. The representation of students of color with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in the special education literature has not kept pace with their overrepresentation in urban schools that deprive them of inclusive education programs. This telling of their counternarratives in their own voices forms the basis of this text. Connor’s interest in the experiences of children who make up the largest group of students in urban public school special education programs began during his teaching career. He discovered that this population, mostly learning-disabled, Black or Latino(a) and working-class or poor, was not represented in professional literature. Using an interdisciplinary and critical approach, he sought to provide a space for these silenced voices to be heard through the participants’ narratives of disability and exclusion. Chapter one provides a background of the author’s work with students in New York who were labeled LD and the genesis of his interest in special education. He shares how he came to “take up the cause” of students marginalized along racial, class and ability lines. Connor does not paint a picture of himself as a welcome savior of his students. Instead he acknowledges the mistrust that accompanied his relationship with them as both he and they negotiated the silences that typically surround disability. Contrary to the desire of school teachers to make this “problem” go away by ignoring it, Connor encouraged discussions which allowed the students to share their knowledge of their reality. They welcomed the opportunity to share through personal narratives and original artwork their understanding of the power structures that have led to their being segregated within their own schools. Connor helps the reader see the connection between the field of special education that is predominantly non-disabled, White and middle class and the void in professional literature that does not reflect the experiences of the occupants of urban special education classes who are largely students of color. It is this inequality in public education that he seeks to correct by empowering the participants through giving them a forum for their voices to be heard. In Chapter two, the author frames his work within disability studies, critical race theory and Black feminist thought. He begins this chapter with a historical account of how these various frameworks emerged and explains why they were chosen- “their shared focus on ethics, social justice, and the desire to reclaim knowledge obscured by dominant social practices…” (p. 36). Connor explains his choice to work within critical, LatCrit and disability studies frameworks by acknowledging that LDs cannot be studied without regards to the “historical, social and cultural contexts experienced by individuals who have been labeled LD” (p.42). The interconnectedness or interwovenness of oppressions made it critical for the author to resist working within the disability studies framework alone. In Chapters 3-8 we meet eight individuals whose stories Connor refers to as “portraits in progress.” There is no tidiness to the stories told by the participants because the author has allowed portraits to emerge that tell their stories, thoughts, feelings and ideas on race, class and learning disabilities. According to Connor “the portraits do not follow tidy, synchronous timelines. Instead they construct a picture of the individual from a spectrum of asynchronous thoughts and memories” (p. 69). The author chose to retain most of the text from the participants’ writing, group discussions and speculations made during the interviews. He also left most of the grammar “as is.” Although Connor rightly calls the result of this approach a “dynamic fusion” (p. 69), the “deliberate fragmentation” (p. 69) sometimes made for tedious reading of the portraits. He attempts to remedy this by arranging each portrait in the same structure, but I could not help feeling that there was some discontinuity even within the same story. Each portrait begins with an original poem about learning disability, followed by the participants’ analyses of the poem. Likewise, each portrait ends with artwork that represents LD and is followed by the participants’ analyses of the drawing. In between this structure are what appear to be the participant’s monologues - thoughts, ideas and experiences on/with LD, race and class. Chapters 3-8 are aptly titled to reflect the experiences of living at the intersections of learning disability, race and social class. These revealing titles, which are actual statements taken from the participants’ stories, include “Why have I got to be like this;” “I get into so much trouble just by walking;” and “It’s the look they give you… everywhere you go.” In order to carry out the complex analysis of the ways in which power operates in the discourse surrounding disability, race and class, Connor utilizes Collins’ (2000) matrix of domination and Crenshaw’s (1993) three-part model on the structural, political and representational aspects of intersectionality. He breaks down Chapters 11-13 into four domains of power- structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal. In his discussion of the structural domain in Chapter 11, Connor reveals how institutions, including schools, “help maintain the subordination of individuals at the intersection of disability, race, and class” (p. 289). For example, the participants’ narratives show where they believe they are positioned within the hierarchy existing in the categories of disability, race and class. In the category of disability, they view themselves as being positioned lower than their able-bodied counterparts and their stories reveal the shame and pain of being perceived as abnormal. In the category of race, the participants show that they understand existing racial hierarchies that keep Whites at the top, followed by Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and African-Americans. Their stories reveal their perception of their position within this hierarchy. In the category of class, the participants’ show how class system reflects and reinforces racial hierarchies. Their perception of class hierarchy is grounded in their personal experiences with discriminatory practices in housing, schooling and the job market. Chapter 12 focuses on the disciplinary domain of power and how the participants come to understand their position within the well-oiled “machine bureaucracy of the school system” (p.333). Their stories acknowledge the roles that race and class play in the placement of disabled children in environments that are restrictive and confining. Connor uses the imagery of a concentric circle to describe the limited locus of control that LD individuals possess. He gives the example of neighborhoods that are segregated by race and class and neighborhood schools that are segregated by race, class and ability. Within this concentric circle are LD students whose race and class determine where they are placed in school. Connor argues that “within these concentric circles… those labeled disabled are segregated within segregation and therefore experience the most segregation of all” (p. 333). The hegemonic and interpersonal domains of power are discussed in Chapter 13. According to Connor, the hegemonic domain is distinct from the disciplinary in that while the latter organizes oppression, the former rationalizes it. The interpersonal domain, on the other hand, deals with oppression and the ways it manifests in everyday relations and interactions. This chapter explains the complexity of never knowing which aspect of one’s identity is the cause of discrimination at any given time. Connor acknowledges that it is impossible to “determine where oppression as a result of one marker of identity starts and oppression as a result of another ends” (p. 357). So, like the participants’ experiences reveal, oppressions can merge or overlap when they are not sure if they are being followed in the store because of race, class or age discrimination. Sadly, this fusion of oppressions (p. 357) causes the participants to disdain or want to change at least one aspect of their identity. On a positive note, their stories show a resilience that comes from learning to balance the tensions inherent in having these multiple identities. The author concludes with implications for theory, research, policy and practice. Theoretical implications include challenging scholars in the field of LD to incorporate issues of race and class in their work. Implications for research include the question of how researchers can collaborate with LD participants in choosing research questions, appropriate methodologies, methods of analysis and mode of representation. Implications for policy suggest that a social model of understanding disability, rather than the existing medical model, will shed new light on disability. Whereas the medical model provides a singular way of viewing diversity, a social model will reveal the systems that complicate the one dimensional approach. Finally, the implications for practice address the disparity between the “noble” intentions of special education professionals and the real experiences of LD students who regard the label, special education, as an insult. In-service teachers are encouraged to include disability in the curriculum, along with other “accepted” diversity like race and ethnicity (p. 376). Inclusion of disability in the curriculum will push the silence surrounding it and challenge schools to bring to the fore, and include disabled students in regular school practices. I believe that this will lead to what I think Connor is calling for- a humanizing of the experiences of LD students and an inclusion of their experiences and learning styles in the classroom community. References Collins, P.H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Crenshaw, K.W. (1993). Beyond racism and misogyny: Black feminism and 2 Live Crew. In M.J. Matsuda, C.R. Lawrence, R. Delgado, & K.W. Crenshaw (Eds.), Critical race theory, assaultative speech, and the first amendment (pp.111-132). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. About the Reviewer Reviewed by Chinwe Okpalaoka, a doctoral candidate in the School of Educational Policy and Leadership, College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University. Her areas of interest include immigrant education, ethnic identity development and curriculum reform.

Clark, M. M., & Waller, T. Ed. (2007). Early childhood education and care: Policy and practice. Reviewed by Christopher Pierce Brown, University of Texas

Clark, M. M., & Waller, T. Ed. (2007). Early childhood education and care: Policy and practice. London: SAGE. Pp. xv +192         ISBN 978-1-4129-3572-2 Reviewed by Christopher Pierce Brown University of Texas at Austin July 27, 2008 The policy and practice of early childhood education continues to gain prominence on policymakers’ agendas across the globe (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (2006). A range of texts have emerged over the years that explore such as issues as the rise of early education in contexts such as the United States (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2007), the connection between particular policy issues and practice (Pianta, Cox, & Snow, 2007), or improving the quality of the early education teaching workforce (Kagan, Kauerz, & Tarrant, 2008). While the texts cited in the above primarily focus on early childhood education in the United States, this book by Clark and Waller (2007), Early childhood education and care: Policy and practice, provides insight into the policies that frame the practice of early education and care in the countries of the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the Republic of Ireland. The text is divided into seven chapters. Beginning with an introduction, and then followed by chapters that describe the policies and practices of early childhood education in England, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The text ends with a summary of the variations in early education and care for young children across these countries and provides issues for the reader to contemplate in relation to the provision of early childhood education in these contexts. In the introduction, which is written by Clark and Waller, the editors set the stage for the text. They begin by making it clear that this book is written for early childhood students and practitioners so that they can understand the policies that shape the practice of early childhood education across the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland. Similarly to the United States, the provision and care of young children in the U.K. has only recently risen on policymakers’ agendas, and thus, the policies start from a “very low base” (p.11). Using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports Starting Strong (2002) and Starting Strong II (2006) in this and the final chapter, the authors demonstrate how the care of young children in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland falls short in relation to other European Union nations, specifically the Nordic countries by highlighting such issues as these countries nearly universal right of access to preschool. Finally, the editors discuss how each chapter in this book is outlined in the same format, and they make clear that this is a teaching text in which each case is presented in an objective fashion so that the reader can understand the complexity of policies and practice as well as evaluate the effectiveness of each solution from his or her own conceptions of early education. For instance, in this chapter and throughout the text, the authors provide a series of discussion questions that offer opportunities for the reader or a class of students to consider how the issues the authors are describing impact the care and instruction of young children or how do they compare to other countries within the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland. England is the first context of early education and care that is explored in this book. While the editors state that these cases are presented in alphabetical order rather than in any type of importance, presenting England first, which encompasses almost 84% of the population of the U.K., is quite useful in understanding the differences that exist across each of the countries. This and the other chapters that discuss each country begins with two case studies that describe the experiences of children born in that country in the year 2000 and follows them through their sixth birthday in 2006. In the introduction, the editors note that they want these case studies to help the reader see the complexity of a child’s upbringing for families as well as to understand the need for a set of intricate early education policies so that these children and their families’ needs could be met. Additionally, the editors hope that by having 5 different contexts to compare will help the readers see why one cannot make generalizations about the early childhood environments across these five countries. Compared to other documents that explore early childhood education policy and practice (e.g., National Institute for Early Education Research, 2007), these case studies are a useful heuristic devise that assists the reader in understanding what is needed for families so that their children could participate in a cohesive and consistent set of early education experiences. After the two case studies are presented, the authors in this chapter, as well as the remaining chapters that discuss each country, provide some background on England, summarize the policies and provisions for children up until they enter primary school, discuss the supports that exist for transitions from preschool to primary school, outline the policies that govern primary school, highlight special education services, summarize social safeguarding policies, mention quality assurance issues, talk about professional development, and give insight into the future of the field in England. Of all the countries examined in this book, England is the most regulated and detailed in terms of early childhood education policy. The author, Gill McGillivray, points out that most of these policy initiatives have been driven by economic rather than social needs, and within that, the services offered by local governing agencies are patchy at best. According to McGillivray, the care for young children that is publicly supported is part time, two to two and a half hours long, and these services typically do not meet working parents’ needs. Children in England can start primary school in August once they are at least 4 years-old and one month, which is termed their Reception Year, and as of 2004, 61% of qualified four-year old children attended primary school and then transitioned into what is termed Year 1 of schooling. There is a national curriculum in England that begins with the Foundation Stage for three and four year-olds. As of 2003, a Foundation Stage Profile is also mandated for each child. This profile provides insight into children’s acquisition of the skills that are outlined in the Foundation Stage curriculum, and these profiles are sent to the local school the child will attend. Once in primary school, students in England engage in this country’s National Curriculum, which requires an hour of literacy and numeracy instruction on a daily basis, and at the end of Year 2 (approximately age 7), which with Year 1 is termed Key Stage one, students are assessed by their teachers in English and Mathematics. It must be noted that unlike the United States all of these countries in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (go to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm), and as such, childhood is framed differently throughout these discussions. In each chapter, considerable time is spent discussing how childhood, which is framed by each of these authors as a social and cultural construct, is safeguarded as well as what is being done by each country’s governing agencies to ensure children’s basic rights are being met, which is a conversation that is rarely discussed within the U.S. political context. As one reads through the text, the variations between context, early education policy, and teacher workforces become quite obvious. For instance, in Northern Ireland thirty-seven percent of the children live in poverty. In Wales, all children participate in bilingual education programs, and in the Republic of Ireland, primary schools are funded by the state, but for the most part, are managed by the local church organization, which tends to be Catholic. Within each analysis of these countries’ systems of early childhood education, the language of schooling and education policy these authors use is rooted in the terminology of the U.K. For instance, using terms such as Reception class, infant school, childminder, graduate level, etc can make it difficult to for the non-U.K. reader to understand how the education and care for children across each of these contexts varies. For instance, in the Republic of Ireland, it is unclear how a nursery centre varies from a drop-in crèche or a pre-school. Furthermore, all of the issues these authors explore, which include policies for early childhood education funding and practice, teacher training, and the various forms of care are discussed within the span of a page or two, and with such depth of detail provided in quite brief explanations, the differences as well as the parameters of policy within each country can be difficult to follow. Moreover, this text is written for an individual who is knowledgeable of the politics, cultural shifts, and policy debates that are occurring in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Thus, a non-U.K. reader who has a general understanding of the outlay of policy and practice in early childhood education will still struggle to engage fully with this text, particularly in answering the discussion questions that are to foster conversations about the changing culture of these countries, the impact of immigration, or how the various conceptions of being ready to learn affect policy and practice in each context. Nevertheless, Clark and Waller end their edited book by revisiting the OECD documents that they outlined in the introduction, and they provide a detailed set of summary tables that delineate the provisions of care and education in each country, their childcare costs, and their curriculum and assessment practices. As they do this, Clark and Waller make the case for increased services for children under 3 and for the need of increased services for the rural populations of each country. They then begin to close this chapter by using the work of Moss and Petrie (2002) to examine critically the framing of pedagogy and curriculum of the early years in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland. Rather than define the underlying purpose of early childhood education as being the development of a specific set of care and education services, Moss and Petrie (2002) contend that it should be conceptualized as a field that creates spaces for children. Such spaces should allow children to be agents within their growth and development, and within these spaces, the early educator is framed as an individual who works with children rather than on them. Using this idea of children’s spaces, the authors conclude this chapter and the text by revisiting the issues and controversies they raised in the introduction. Thus, in the end, the authors of this text raise as many questions for the reader as they attempt to answer in defining the policy and practice of early childhood education in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland. On the whole, the text achieves the editors’ goal and provides a consistent introductory analysis into each of these countries’ early childhood education environments, which is quite useful, and after completing the text, it becomes clearer how the similarities between these countries far outweighs their differences. While the editors use the Nordic countries as a benchmark for high-quality early childhood education, which in itself can be a controversial term, there are many positives that can be found within these countries that make up the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland when comparing these systems of care to those found in nations such as the United States. For instance, paid maternity leave for mothers, which typically lasts six months, universal access to healthcare, shifts towards a play-based curricula, and the questioning of the use of standardized assessment measures with young children (in the case of Wales, the total rejection of such policies), all provide useful examples for early education stakeholders in the U.S. and other countries to consider when developing policies that are to expand and improve the quality of care and education provided to young children. References Kagan, S. L., Kauerz, K., & Tarrant, K (2008). The early care and education teaching workforce at the fulcrum. New York: Teachers College Press. Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (2002). From children’s services to children’s spaces. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. National Institute for Early Education Research (2007). The State of Preschool 2007. New Brunswick, NJ: Author. Available at http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001). Starting strong: Early childhood education and care. Paris: Author. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: Author. Pianta R. C., Cox, M. J., & Snow, K. L. (eds.) (2007). School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co. About the Reviewer Christopher P. Brown, PhD, is an assistant professor of early childhood education at The University of Texas at Austin in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. His research interest is in how the intersection of education policy, curriculum, and assessment affect the early childhood/early elementary education process, and this includes teacher education.

Morse, Jane Fowler. (2007). A Level Playing Field: School Finance in the Northeast. Reviewed by Craig L. Esposito, University of Connecticut

Morse, Jane Fowler. (2007). A Level Playing Field: School Finance in the Northeast. Albany, NY. State University of New York Press. Pp. xv + 349     $30     ISBN ISBN 0-7914-6932-8

Reviewed by Craig L. Esposito
University of Connecticut

August 12, 2008

This broad-ranging and ambitious volume addresses two of the most important, and seemingly insoluble, questions in education: how do we provide all children with an equal opportunity for an adequate education, and why do our best efforts to do so keep coming up short? Jane Fowler Morse makes an impassioned plea for better funding of our schools, details three case histories from which citizens, researchers and policymakers interested in school finance reform can learn lessons, and provides an impressive and useful set of citations, references, and law cases. She also examines how racism, classism, and poverty intersect to make adequate school financing more difficult. This book would be an excellent resource for anyone who is interested in a broad outline of school finance litigation history, the narrow, magnified, and granular view of the three case histories, and a look at some of the root causes of educational disparities.

The book begins with a brief history of the development of public education in the United States and then moves into a general review of early school finance litigation on a national level. She describes the legal reasoning that prevailed in those early state and federal cases, and how the legal concepts for school finance litigation have evolved, shifted, and changed over the years. She then provides detailed case studies of three efforts to reform school finance that used different strategies-- New York State, Vermont, and Ontario, Canada—to show how difficult, protracted, contradictory, unpredictable and unsatisfactory the results of school reform can be, regardless of the strategy employed.

In New York, judicially-originated reforms took over thirty years to be even partially implemented; in Vermont, quickly enacted reforms almost as quickly began to erode; and in Ontario, centralization and cost efficiencies driven by a conservative agenda to equalize education expenditures instead resulted in a decrease in educational funding. The author amply highlights how, in school finance reform, ‘the more things change, the more they remain the same’ by describing the many forces undermining change: winning in the courts often means little change in the disparity between rich and poor districts, as wealthy districts increase their spending to maintain their superiority over poorer districts; spending is reduced downwards to provide “equality” that hurts everyone; states with weak education clauses often move more quickly and decisively than states with strong education clauses; legislatures are slow to respond when directed to do so by courts; the courts are reluctant to usurp ‘separation of powers’ and the legislatures’ prerogatives even when disparities are glaring and blatant; the desire for local control versus state funding; and even when reforms are implemented, they quickly erode or become outdated (Thompson & Crampton, 2002).

It is evident that Dr. Morse embraces the concept of adequacy, which takes into account not only how much is spent on students, but just as importantly considers outcomes as well (Duncombe & Lukemeyer, 2002). The book details how adequacy is the outgrowth of a 50 year nation-wide effort to reform schools and school finance in the courts to make the distribution of public funds and public opportunities for education more equitable. Starting with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) that segregation violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and violated “a right (to education) which must be available to all on equal terms.” (*494), the author describes the three periods or “waves” of school finance reform (Heise, 1995). Each wave corresponds to a different legal theory regarding the funding of public education in the United States. The first wave relied on the federal constitution’s equal protection clause, as in Brown or in Serrano v. Priest (1971). The US Supreme Court brought this period to an end in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), ruling that under the US Constitution’s 10th Amendment, education was a power reserved to the states, and not subject to federal equal protection interpretations. Proponents for financing reform then turned to the states and their constitutions for redress.

This second wave began after Rodriguez and focused on equity of funding and state constitution equal protection and education clauses. It addressed the discrepancy in per pupil spending in school districts due to the reliance on local revenues for funding. Poor districts could not raise funds equivalent to those raised by their wealthier counterparts, and state courts often agreed that the states must do more to equalize the resources provided to students throughout the state.

The third wave began in 1989, with equity concerns evolving into a focus on adequacy, typified by the Kentucky case, Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989). The book details the seven minimum goals the Kentucky Supreme Court considered necessary for an adequate education. Adequacy presumed that horizontal equity (i.e., treating everyone the same) was insufficient, because, depending on their circumstances, some students required more to overcome the obstacles to an adequate education. Equal was not necessarily adequate, and while equity concerns itself with whether the financing is equivalent for all students, adequacy asks if the opportunities for a minimally acceptable education (as defined by the state) are equally and fairly distributed. While this standard might seem quite clear and straightforward, the author documents how different states can differ radically in their interpretation and definiton of adequacy and how it is to be achieved.

The second half of the book takes a broader view of school finance and looks at how classism, racism and poverty are responsible for much of the underlying disparities and inequalities, how these affect school children, and how efforts at school finance reform must explicitly address these areas to be successful. The author makes a strong case for a systems approach, arguing that education is part of an overall system, and one must address the issues of wealth inequities, residential segregation, social welfare programs, and other public policies which actually determine much of the context in which education does, or does not, take place. To use a medical analogy, it is ultimately better to treat the cause of a disease, rather than treat the symptoms.

In keeping with her premise that other systemic forces beyond the educational system are at work, e.g., racism, poverty, classism, the author details how the majority of court victories in finance cases involve poor white students, while minority districts win a far smaller percentage of their cases; how lead contamination affects the poor far more than the wealthy; that social services for the poor and minorities have declined; the growth of prisons and the incarceration rate in the United States to warehouse our educational and social failures; and the racial double standard of the current standards movement. Yet despite the slow progress of finance reform and all of the obstacles arrayed against its success, the author’s tone is not pessimistic. In fact, she seems energized by the challenges confronting society in its struggle for better education for everyone. Hopefully, readers of this book will also feel re-energized and rededicated to pursuing social justice and improved educational outcomes.

References

Brown v.Board of Education of Topeka, No. 1, 1954 U.S. Lexis 2094 (U.S. May 17, 1954).

Duncombe, W., & Lukemeyer, A. (2002). Estimating the Cost of Educational Adequacy: A Comparison of Approaches. Syracuse, NY: Center for Policy Research.

Heise, M. (1995). The Effect of Constitutional Litigation on Education Finance: More Preliminary Analyses and Modeling, Journal of Education Finance, 21, 195-216.

Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc. No. 88-SC-804-TG, 1989 Ky. LEXIS 55 (Ky. June 8, 1989).

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 56 (1973).

Serrano v Priest, No. 29820, 1971 Cal. Lexis 273, (Cal August 30, 1971).

Thompson, D. C., & Crampton, F. E. (2002). The Impact of School Finance Litigation: A Long View. Journal of Education Finance, 27, 783-805.

About the Reviewer

Craig L. Esposito is a Ph.D. student in Educational Policy and Leadership at the University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education. His interests include school finance, school choice, and higher education funding.

Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (Eds.) (2008). Place-Based Education in the Global Age: Local Diversity. Reviewed by Samuel S. Perkins, Barry University

Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (Eds.) (2008). Place-Based Education in the Global Age: Local Diversity. NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp. xxiii + 377         ISBN 0-8058-5864-4 Reviewed by Samuel S. Perkins Barry University August 12, 2008 An effective review of Place-Based Education in the Global Age: Local Diversity could not occur without first defining the core concept of this work: Place-based education. The editors, David A. Gruenewald and Gregory A. Smith, provide this definition in the “Introduction” section: … place-based education can be understood as a community effort to reconnect the process of education, enculturation, and human development to the well-being of community life. Place-based or place-conscious education introduces children and youth to the skills and dispositions needed to regenerate and sustain communities. It achieves this end by drawing on local phenomena as the source of at least a share of children’s learning experiences, helping them to understand the processes that underlie the health of natural and social systems essential to human welfare. (p. xvi) Multiple contributors to this book contend that educational systems (in various countries) have not adequately considered (1) students as contributing members to diverse communities (including the global community) and (2) the importance of these systems in developing students as effective participants and leaders in these communities. Several contributors also argue that many educational systems have not adequately exposed students to ecological education, which has as a primary focus making students aware of (the effects of their actions on) nature and the environment. Effective place-based educational systems address these timely and important topics. Gruenewald and Smith offer the two purposes of the book in the “Introduction” section: First, we wish to contribute to the theory and practice of place-based or place-conscious education by collecting instructive and inspiring stories that can serve as exemplars for this exciting, burgeoning field. Second, we want to make the case through these stories of collaboration that place-based education can be viewed as the educational counterpart of a broader movement toward reclaiming the significance of the local in the global age. (p. xiii) This review will address the level of success that this book attains in meeting the above purposes in addition to providing a brief summary of the work’s content. This book is structured in three sections; the sections are entitled “Models for Place-Based Learning,” “Reclaiming Broader Meanings of Education,” and “Global Visions of the Local in Higher Education.” Each section contains several chapters, each chapter authored by a different contributor or contributors (two maximum). In total, there are sixteen contributors to this text. In terms of professional affiliations and geographic headquarters, the contributors represent a diverse cross section of global professionals: educators and scholars working with various age levels of students and with different vantage points on the roles of place-based education in today’s world. The contributors work in multiple sections of the United States (urban and non-urban) in addition to one contributor being from Australia and one from Israel. Employing devices such as detailed descriptions, anecdotes, and narratives, the contributors in the first section thoroughly and vividly provide “instructive and inspiring stories” (p. xiii) of place-based education in action. The stories take place in micro settings such as an art classroom, but also extend the concept of place-based education to macro settings outside the classroom (e.g., communities and nature). The contributors in the second section broaden and extend the focus of the entries in the first section to address the roles and benefits of place-based education in education and communities. Relevant and timely topics in this section include the close relationship between place-based education and culturally responsive teaching and how place-based education can contribute to the collaborative economic development of diverse communities. The second section serves as a primer to the third and final section, which has an even broader, global focus in the form of case studies from diverse global locales. These case studies bring home the authors’ argument that place-based education serves important global roles and can be effectively implemented around the world. The second and third sections of the book also meet the editors’ second purpose in synthesizing this collaborative volume: “… place-based education can be viewed as the educational counterpart of a broader movement toward reclaiming the significance of the local in the global age” (p. xiii). The last chapter of the final section is entitled “Place-Based Teacher Education.” The chapter’s authors clearly and effectively connect various concepts of place-based education introduced in the previous chapters to provide ideas for developing teacher education courses and programs based on these concepts. Following the final chapter is the “Afterword,” which is authored by the editors of the book. This section provides ideas for action plans for implementing place-based educational systems. Also, in order to help the reader in further researching and implementing such systems, there are valuable lists of references offered at the ends of chapters. In summary, Place-Based Education in the Global Age: Local Diversity is a thorough and engaging volume of topics and issues related to place-based education. The contributors provide background knowledge the reader needs, offer examples of place-based education in action, connect place-based education to community and global considerations, summarize the content, and offer ideas on where to go from here. I highly recommend this book as a primary textbook in the increasing number of university courses that focus on place-based education. I also highly recommend this book as a supplementary resource in courses that focus on such topics as culturally responsive teaching and development of aware and responsive community leaders. About the Reviewer Samuel S. Perkins, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Early and Middle Childhood Education at Barry University. He earned his Ph.D. in Higher Education (with a specialization in TESOL) from Georgia State University. His research agenda includes topics related to culture, language acquisition, and language assessment.